diff --git "a/cotSFT/gemini-correct/checkpoints_test_text/checkpoint_1000_20250613_013533.json" "b/cotSFT/gemini-correct/checkpoints_test_text/checkpoint_1000_20250613_013533.json"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/cotSFT/gemini-correct/checkpoints_test_text/checkpoint_1000_20250613_013533.json"
@@ -0,0 +1,7002 @@
+[
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--135940",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Thank you so much for renting this apartment to me. I really appreciate it.\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: No problem, Rayaan. I'm glad you like it. It's always nice to have a new tenant who is excited about their new home. How do you like the layout of\n[00:10 - 00:23] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I just wanted to mention how much I love the area! It's so different from my old neighborhood. Everything is so clean and well-kept here. I feel much safer walking around at night too.\n[00:23 - 00:32] Speaker B: That makes me happy to hear! We take a lot of pride in our community, and we want everyone to feel safe and comfortable here. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to reach out\n[00:31 - 00:40] Speaker A: Actually, speaking of that, I was wondering if there's a local contact number I can reach in case of any emergencies or issues with the apartment?\n[00:40 - 00:47] Speaker B: Absolutely, I'll provide you with that. And as I was saying, we're always happy to help out our tenants however we can.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous turn.\n- Speaker A expresses thanks for the apartment.\n- Speaker B responds appropriately, expresses gladness, and attempts to continue the conversation by asking about the layout.\n- Speaker A, while interrupting, immediately qualifies it with \"Sorry to jump in,\" and then shifts to a related topic (the area/neighborhood). This is a natural conversational shift for someone excited about a new place.\n- Speaker B acknowledges A's sentiment about the area and expands on it, mentioning community pride and offering help.\n- Speaker A then smoothly transitions from B's offer of help (\"If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to reach out\") to a specific, practical question about a local contact number, using \"speaking of that.\"\n- Speaker B provides a direct answer and reiterates their willingness to help.\nThe topic coherence is maintained throughout, moving from the apartment itself to the surrounding area, and then to practical aspects of being a tenant, all logically connected.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good interactional fluency with some brief overlaps, which are explicitly stated as acceptable by the criteria.\n- There is a 1-second overlap at `[00:10 - 00:23]` where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence `[00:04 - 00:11]`. This overlap is immediately acknowledged by Speaker A with \"Sorry to jump in,\" indicating awareness and natural conversational eagerness rather than a breakdown in communication.\n- There is another 1-second overlap at `[00:31 - 00:40]` where Speaker A starts speaking just as Speaker B finishes their turn `[00:23 - 00:32]`. This is also a brief overlap and doesn't hinder comprehension or flow.\nThe criteria state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" These 1-second overlaps are brief and contribute to a natural, dynamic conversational rhythm rather than indicating a problem. There are no long pauses detected between turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--132565",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Hey, Lola. I know you've been admiring my watch for a while now and I wanted to show you that I care about you by giving it to you as\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: Wait, are you really sure about this? I don't want to take something that means so much to you.\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker A: Of course I'm sure. I want you to have it because it'll make you happy and I care about making you\n[00:17 - 00:21] Speaker B: Your happiness is important too, Kemoni. Are you really okay with parting with it?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Speaker B's initial hesitation (\"Wait, are you really sure about this? I don't want to take something that means so much to you.\") directly responds to Speaker A's offer and the implied sentiment behind it. Speaker A's subsequent reassurance (\"Of course I'm sure. I want you to have it because it'll make you happy and I care about making you\") logically follows and addresses B's concerns. Finally, Speaker B's last statement (\"Your happiness is important too, Kemoni. Are you really okay with parting with it?\") continues the thread of mutual care and concern for the other's well-being, directly building on Speaker A's previous statement about making B happy. The conversation maintains strong topic coherence, staying focused on the watch, the act of giving/receiving, and the emotional implications for both parties. Each turn builds on the previous one in a natural and logical manner.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two brief overlaps detected:\n- [00:06 - 00:07]: Speaker A: \"as\" and Speaker B: \"Wait, are you really sure about this?\" (1-second overlap)\n- [00:17 - 00:18]: Speaker A: \"making you\" and Speaker B: \"Your happiness is important too, Kemoni.\" (1-second overlap)\nThese are very short, natural overlaps that are common in fluent, spontaneous conversation, indicating engagement and eagerness to respond rather than interruption or conflict. There is also a brief 1-second pause between Speaker B's first turn ending at 00:11 and Speaker A's second turn starting at 00:12. These small pauses and brief overlaps are explicitly stated as acceptable in the scoring criteria and do not hinder the flow of the conversation. There are no prolonged pauses or extended overlapping turns that would be considered harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--31917",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: It's so nice in here. The warmth is really comforting, especially\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but I just noticed the scent of the candles. Do you know what fragrance it is? It's really soothing.\n[00:11 - 00:24] Speaker A: I love the smell of the candles too. I think it's a mix of lavender and vanilla, which makes it even more calming. By the way, the roses are beautiful. It's such a shame they only last a short period before\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker B: True, but don't you think that's what makes them even more special? The fact that they're so fleeting?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n- **Logical Consistency:** The dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency. Speaker B's initial interruption is acknowledged (\"Sorry to cut in\"), making it a polite and understandable deviation. Speaker A then directly answers Speaker B's question about the candle scent before smoothly transitioning to a new topic (roses) with \"By the way.\" Speaker B's final response directly addresses Speaker A's comment about the roses' short lifespan, offering a philosophical counterpoint. Each turn builds logically on the previous one, either by directly responding or by managing a smooth topic shift.\n- **Topic Coherence:** The conversation maintains good topic coherence. It starts with general comfort, transitions to a specific sensory detail (candles), and then to another specific sensory detail (roses). These topics are all related to the immediate environment and pleasant observations. The transitions, especially Speaker A's \"By the way,\" are natural and well-managed, preventing abruptness. There are no irrelevant or off-topic statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n- **Extended Overlaps:** There are two instances where overlaps are suggested by the timestamps.\n    - At [00:04], Speaker B starts speaking as Speaker A's turn ends. Speaker B says, \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating an awareness of interrupting or overlapping Speaker A's previous sentence (\"...especially\"). This is a brief, acknowledged overlap, which is common and acceptable in natural conversation, not an extended or harmful one.\n    - At [00:23], Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still talking (\"before\" at 00:24). This is a very brief overlap (approximately 1 second). This is a \"brief overlap\" as described in the criteria and is acceptable.\n- **Long Pauses:** There is one noticeable pause:\n    - Between Speaker B's first turn (ends at 00:10) and Speaker A's second turn (starts at 00:11), there is a 1-second pause. This is a \"small pause\" and is well within acceptable limits for natural conversation.\nOverall, the interaction flows very naturally with no prolonged pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps. The minor overlaps and pauses are typical of fluent human conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--137529",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I can't believe you're still out here! It's horrible weather, you should really come inside before\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: No, I'm fine, I don't mind the rain. Actually, I find it quite refreshing— it helps\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: Are you sure? You look like you're about to collapse. Here, let me help you up.\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: Thanks, but I'm really okay. I just wanted to enjoy the storm for a little while longer. It's so calming in\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker A: Exhilarating? I get that, but your health is more important. Seriously, you should come inside.\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker B: If you say so. I'm going back inside, but I'll leave the door open for you in case you change your mind.\n[00:31 - 00:32] Speaker A: Thanks, Aine.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A consistently expresses concern for Speaker B's well-being in the bad weather and urges them to come inside. Speaker B consistently resists this notion, explaining their enjoyment of the weather, but eventually concedes.\n- At [00:04-00:09], Speaker B directly addresses Speaker A's concern, explaining their preference for the rain.\n- At [00:08-00:13], Speaker A escalates their concern, offering physical assistance, which is a logical follow-up to B's initial dismissal.\n- At [00:14-00:19], Speaker B reiterates their state and reason, maintaining their stance.\n- At [00:19-00:26], Speaker A slightly misinterprets B's last word (\"calming\" heard as \"exhilarating\" or something similar), but immediately links it back to the core topic of health and coming inside, maintaining topic coherence. This slight misinterpretation does not derail the conversation.\n- At [00:26-00:31], Speaker B's concession and offer (\"I'm going back inside, but I'll leave the door open for you\") is a logical conclusion to the persuasion attempt, assuming Speaker A is also outside or was outside trying to get Speaker B inside.\n- At [00:31-00:32], Speaker A's \"Thanks, Aine\" is a direct and relevant acknowledgment of B's offer.\nOverall, the conversation flows logically, and each speaker's turn is relevant to the preceding turn and the overarching topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are brief overlaps at [00:04 - 00:05] (1 second) and [00:08 - 00:09] (1 second). These are short and appear to be natural instances of speakers interrupting or interjecting, indicating engagement and urgency (on Speaker A's part, and a desire to respond on Speaker B's part). As per the guidelines, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these fall within that acceptable range. They do not constitute \"extended overlaps\" or cause disruption.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are smooth and natural, contributing to a fluid conversation. For instance, the gap between [00:13] and [00:14] is only 1 second, which is a natural pause for turn-taking.\nThe conversation feels natural and unimpeded by issues of timing or overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--63644",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:11] Speaker A: Hey Noemi, I was just admiring your signature and I'm really impressed with how intricate and well-defined it is. It's definitely one of the best signatures I've ever seen. I\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker B: Oh, thank you! I actually put a lot of time and effort into perfecting it. A lot of people don't realize how important having a good signature can be.\n[00:18 - 00:27] Speaker A: I completely agree! Your signature is so unique and it really stands out. It must take you forever to write it out every time,\n[00:26 - 00:35] Speaker B: Actually, not anymore. It doesn't take me too long these days since I've had a lot of practice. But yeah, back when I first started working on it, it took me ages to get it right.\n[00:36 - 00:44] Speaker A: It definitely shows how much dedication and effort you put into it. Do you mind if I ask what inspired you to create such a detailed signature?\n[00:45 - 00:54] Speaker B: Not at all! I actually came up with the idea when I was trying to think of a way to make my name stand out more. I figured that if I had a really cool signature, people would remember my name better.\n[00:55 - 01:07] Speaker A: That makes total sense! And it definitely worked because like I said, your signature is really unique and eye-catching. So, do you have any advice for someone who is trying to create their own signature?\n[01:08 - 01:16] Speaker B: Yeah, definitely practice a lot! It takes time to perfect your technique and find the style that works best for you. But it's definitely worth it in the end.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence throughout the conversation about Noemi's signature.\n- Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's admiration and expands on the importance of a good signature.\n- Speaker A's subsequent comments and questions build naturally on Speaker B's statements (e.g., asking about the time it takes, then about inspiration, and finally for advice).\n- Speaker B's answers are always direct, relevant, and provide additional details or opinions pertinent to the discussion.\nThere are no instances of illogical leaps, off-topic remarks, or inconsistent information. The conversation flows smoothly from one point to the next, indicating a strong understanding and engagement between the speakers.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps detected:\n    - [00:10 - 00:11] Speaker A and Speaker B (1 second overlap)\n    - [00:26 - 00:27] Speaker A and Speaker B (1 second overlap)\nThese are short and natural, indicating active listening and turn-taking without being disruptive or prolonged. As per the instructions, brief overlaps are acceptable.\n- **Pauses:** There are brief pauses (1 second) between most turns where one speaker finishes and the other begins, for example:\n    - Speaker B ends at 00:17, Speaker A starts at 00:18.\n    - Speaker B ends at 00:35, Speaker A starts at 00:36.\n    - Speaker A ends at 00:44, Speaker B starts at 00:45.\n    - Speaker B ends at 00:54, Speaker A starts at 00:55.\n    - Speaker A ends at 01:07, Speaker B starts at 01:08.\nThese short pauses are natural for conversational turn-taking and do not suggest any awkwardness or hesitation. There are no long or prolonged pauses that would disrupt the flow. The conversation feels natural and well-paced.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--14",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What time is it, Tom?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Just a minute. It's ten to nine by my watch, but\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: Ten to nine? I had no idea it was so late. I must be off now.\n[00:09 - 00:10] Speaker B: What's the hurry?\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker A: I must catch the nine-thirty train.\n[00:13 - 00:22] Speaker B: You've plenty of time yet. The railway station is very close. It won't take more than twenty minutes to get there. By the way, you didn't finish—what were you saying about your watch earlier?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n- **Logical Consistency:** The dialogue demonstrates excellent logical consistency. Speaker A's initial question about the time leads directly to Speaker B's answer. Speaker A's reaction (\"Ten to nine? I had no idea it was so late. I must be off now.\") is a direct and logical consequence of the time given. Speaker B's \"What's the hurry?\" directly follows Speaker A's need to leave. Speaker A's explanation (\"I must catch the nine-thirty train\") directly answers Speaker B's question. Speaker B's subsequent advice (\"You've plenty of time yet. The railway station is very close.\") logically addresses Speaker A's perceived urgency.\n- **Topic Coherence:** The conversation remains highly coherent. The primary topic revolves around the time and Speaker A's travel plans. The slight digression by Speaker B at the end (\"By the way, you didn't finish—what were you saying about your watch earlier?\") is a natural and coherent move, as it directly refers back to Speaker B's *own* unfinished statement from the beginning of the conversation (\"It's ten to nine by my watch, but...\"), which was interrupted by Speaker A. This demonstrates good memory and a desire to complete a thought, which is very natural in conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n- **Extended Overlaps:** There is one instance of overlap: Speaker A (00:03 - 00:08) begins speaking while Speaker B (00:01 - 00:04) is still saying \"but\". This overlap lasts for approximately 1 second (from 00:03 to 00:04). According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This overlap is brief and seems natural, indicating Speaker A's immediate reaction and urgency upon hearing the time, cutting off Speaker B's incomplete thought. It does not hinder understanding or disrupt the flow significantly.\n- **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n    - The pause between Speaker A's turn ending at 00:08 and Speaker B's turn starting at 00:09 is 1 second, which is a small, natural conversational pause.\n    - The pause between Speaker A's turn ending at 00:12 and Speaker B's turn starting at 00:13 is also 1 second, again, a natural pause.\nOverall, the interaction flows very smoothly, typical of a natural conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--43391",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:10] Speaker A: Hey, thanks for the advice earlier about focusing on my goals. I've been thinking about it a lot and you're right, I need to start working towards them by setting\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B: Immediately, right? That's great to hear! So, what are your goals?\n[00:13 - 00:30] Speaker A: Well, first off, I want to get a better job. My current job is okay, but it doesn't pay very well and I'm not really challenged by it. So I've been looking for something else that would be more fulfilling and better paying. Do you have any advice on how to go about doing a thorough\n[00:29 - 00:36] Speaker B: Doing that? Absolutely! Have you considered updating your resume first? It's crucial to make sure it looks polished before you start applying.\n[00:37 - 00:47] Speaker A: Sure! I was going to start working on my resume today and then apply to some places. I'll also try to network more, like you mentioned earlier. Thanks for the advice!\n[00:47 - 00:49] Speaker B: No problem, good luck!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are consistently relevant and maintain strong topic coherence.\n- Speaker A initiates by acknowledging previous advice and expressing intent to act, which naturally sets the stage.\n- Speaker B's immediate follow-up asking \"So, what are your goals?\" is a direct and logical progression from Speaker A's statement about \"setting goals.\"\n- Speaker A then clearly articulates a specific goal (better job) and asks for advice on how to achieve it.\n- Speaker B provides highly relevant and actionable advice (\"updating your resume\") directly addressing Speaker A's query about \"doing that.\" Speaker B also expertly completes Speaker A's trailing sentence, showing attentiveness and understanding.\n- Speaker A's subsequent turn confirms they will follow the advice and expresses gratitude, tying back to the initial topic.\n- Speaker B's closing remark is a natural and appropriate response.\nThere are no instances of misunderstandings, off-topic remarks, or logical inconsistencies. The conversation flows seamlessly from one point to the next, building effectively on previous turns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two instances of overlaps:\n    - [00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A [00:00 - 00:10]. This overlap lasts for 2 seconds (00:10 - 00:08), which is brief and indicates enthusiastic, active listening from Speaker B, not a disruptive interruption.\n    - [00:29 - 00:36] Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A [00:13 - 00:30]. This overlap lasts for 1 second (00:30 - 00:29). This is also a brief overlap where Speaker B anticipates and completes Speaker A's sentence, which is a common and natural occurrence in fluid conversation.\nBoth overlaps are short and contribute to the sense of a dynamic and engaged exchange rather than hindering it.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and smooth:\n    - Speaker A ends at 00:10, Speaker B starts at 00:08 (brief overlap).\n    - Speaker B ends at 00:13, Speaker A starts at 00:13 (no pause).\n    - Speaker A ends at 00:30, Speaker B starts at 00:29 (brief overlap).\n    - Speaker B ends at 00:36, Speaker A starts at 00:37 (1-second pause, which is very brief and natural).\n    - Speaker A ends at 00:47, Speaker B starts at 00:47 (no pause).\nThe conversation maintains a natural and appropriate rhythm throughout.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--76764",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey! What are you doing? Trying to break into my house?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: No, no, no. I'm just looking for my cat. She ran off earlier and I thought she might have wandered into\n[00:08 - 00:21] Speaker A: Your cat? Really? Do you really expect me to believe that? It's the middle of the night and you're trying to break into my house. There's no way I'm buying that story. Who are you really and what do you want with\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker B: I'm telling the truth. I swear. I know it looks bad, but I was just desperate to find her. Please, I mean no harm.\n[00:27 - 00:37] Speaker A: Well, even if that's true, you're still trying to break into my house. That's not acceptable. I'm going to call the police unless you leave right now.\n[00:37 - 00:41] Speaker B: No, please don't do that. I'm sorry for trying to break in. I'll leave right away.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate high logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's accusation, providing an immediate denial and an explanation (\"looking for my cat\"). Speaker A then logically questions this explanation, given the circumstances (\"middle of the night,\" \"trying to break into my house\"), and demands clarification. Speaker B reiterates their truthfulness while acknowledging the suspicious appearance, which is a logical and understandable reaction. Finally, Speaker A's shift to focusing on the act itself (breaking in) and issuing an ultimatum, followed by Speaker B's immediate plea and agreement to leave, maintains perfect logical progression. The topic remains strictly focused on the alleged break-in and the cat story throughout the conversation, with no irrelevant tangents or deviations.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent, reflecting a natural and dynamic conversation, particularly given its confrontational nature. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  Speaker A's turn starts at 00:08 while Speaker B's previous turn ends at 00:09, resulting in a 1-second overlap.\n2.  Speaker B's turn starts at 00:20 while Speaker A's previous turn ends at 00:21, also resulting in a 1-second overlap.\nThese overlaps are brief and can be interpreted as natural interruptions or eager responses in a high-stakes, confrontational dialogue, rather than disruptive prolonged overlaps. The prompt explicitly states that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" There are no long pauses between speaker turns; in fact, the turn-taking is very quick, sometimes even simultaneous (e.g., Speaker B's turn ends at 00:27 and Speaker A's turn starts at 00:27, and similarly for the next pair of turns at 00:37). This rapid back-and-forth contributes significantly to the natural flow and urgency of the conversation, making it feel highly fluent and realistic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--485",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Excuse me.\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Yeah?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker A: I've never used this place before. Can you give me some idea what I need to do to\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Oh, sure! You just put quarters in the machines. It's easy.\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker A: Yes, but. . . well. . .\n[00:13 - 00:13] Speaker B: What?\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker A: How do I use the machines?\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker B: What do you mean? These are the washing machines. Those big things over there are the dryers.\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker A: I see. Do the machines have soap or do\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B: Soap? No, of course not. You have to put soap in. Did you bring your soap?\n[00:27 - 00:36] Speaker A: No, I don't have soap. Also, I was going to ask earlier—do the machines have soap dispensers, or do I need to buy soap separately?\n[00:36 - 00:39] Speaker B: Well, you can buy some from that vending machine over there.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue generally demonstrates strong response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker A consistently asks for information about using the laundromat, and Speaker B's responses directly address these queries.\n*   Speaker A's initial request for \"some idea what I need to do\" is met by Speaker B's basic instruction.\n*   When Speaker A clarifies \"How do I use the machines?\", Speaker B's response (\"What do you mean? These are the washing machines. Those big things over there are the dryers.\") is *somewhat* unhelpful in terms of practical steps for *using* the machine (e.g., loading, settings). However, it is logically consistent in that B is trying to clarify A's level of understanding, perhaps assuming A doesn't even know the difference between washers and dryers. While not the most direct answer, it's not irrelevant or off-topic; it addresses the underlying ambiguity from B's perspective. A then re-orients the conversation.\n*   The subsequent exchange about soap is highly relevant and coherent, with B directly answering A's questions and A providing necessary information.\nOverall, the participants stay on topic, and their turns build logically on previous ones, even if one response isn't perfectly comprehensive from the asker's perspective. There are no instances of misinterpretation that derail the conversation or significant logical inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe interaction exhibits natural conversational fluency with several brief overlaps, which are characteristic of natural speech and do not disrupt the flow.\n*   At [00:06 - 00:10], Speaker B begins speaking slightly before Speaker A finishes, which is a common way to indicate active listening and eagerness to respond.\n*   At [00:22 - 00:26], Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A, quickly answering the question about soap. This is a very brief and non-disruptive overlap, indicating quick comprehension and response.\n*   At [00:36 - 00:39], Speaker B starts speaking just as Speaker A finishes their sentence, again a very common and natural overlap.\nThere are no extended or disruptive overlaps detected.\nSimilarly, there are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses are brief and natural, allowing for smooth turn-taking and processing of information.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--430",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: How would you describe your relationship with our boss?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: We have a fairly good working relationship, but there was also a situation where\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker A: Rough spot? What happened?\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B: Oh, it was just a minor disagreement over a project deadline. We managed to resolve it quickly, though.\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker A: I see. What do you think his strengths are?\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker B: Well, he has an amazing ability to analyze information and he is very good at making the right decision in tough scenarios, especially\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: Speaking of decisions, do you think his approach to handling team conflicts is effective?\n[00:30 - 00:38] Speaker B: Yes, but I was going to say he's particularly good in tough situations. And yes, his conflict resolution skills are definitely a strength as well.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker A's questions consistently follow from Speaker B's previous statements, demonstrating logical consistency and topic coherence. For example, Speaker A's \"Rough spot? What happened?\" directly picks up on Speaker B's \"situation where\", showing active listening and natural inquiry. Similarly, \"Speaking of decisions\" effectively transitions the conversation by linking to Speaker B's previous mention of \"making the right decision\". Speaker B's responses are always on topic, directly addressing the questions posed and even gracefully acknowledging and completing previous thoughts before answering new questions (e.g., \"Yes, but I was going to say he's particularly good in tough situations. And yes, his conflict resolution skills are definitely a strength as well.\"). The conversation flows smoothly and logically, with each turn building coherently on the last.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two instances of brief overlap: `[00:06 - 00:07]` (1 second) and `[00:24 - 00:25]` (1 second). These are very short and typical of natural, engaged conversation, where one speaker anticipates or latches onto the other's ongoing thought. They do not constitute \"extended overlaps\" or \"prolonged overlapping turns\" as described as harmful in the criteria; instead, they indicate active listening and collaborative turn-taking. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are quick, often latching (0 seconds) or with only 1 second of silence, which is perfectly acceptable and contributes to a dynamic and natural conversational rhythm. The dialogue feels spontaneous and unhindered by any fluency issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--90",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Where are you going on vacation this year?\n[00:02 - 00:08] Speaker B: Well, we were thinking about going on the voyage to the Caribbean Sea. It's a beautiful part of the world, and\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but have you checked the weather forecast? I remember the weather there can be really unpredictable.\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: Yes, I've been reading weather reports for the Caribbean on the internet. They seem to have lots of storms.\n[00:20 - 00:32] Speaker A: They certainly do. When we went on a voyage, we stopped at Jamaica and the Cayman Islands. And both had been hit by storms two weeks before. You could still see a lot of damage, especially\n[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker B: Oh, that sounds concerning. Did it affect your experience there?\n[00:35 - 00:43] Speaker A: Yes, the damage was noticeable, but we still enjoyed the trip. If you decide to go, just be prepared for potential weather issues.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's initial question about vacation plans is directly addressed by Speaker B. The subsequent turns flow naturally, with Speaker A introducing the topic of weather in the Caribbean, which is a logical follow-up to vacation planning. Speaker B responds appropriately by confirming they've looked into the weather. Speaker A then shares a relevant personal anecdote about past storm damage, which is logically consistent with the weather topic. Speaker B's follow-up question about the impact on Speaker A's experience is highly relevant and demonstrates engagement. Finally, Speaker A provides a direct answer and offers relevant advice. The conversation maintains a clear topic focus, and transitions are smooth and coherent.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural and appropriate. There are two instances of brief, acceptable overlaps:\n1.  At [0:07], Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. Speaker A immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which mitigates the interruption and makes it sound natural rather than jarring. This brief overlap lasts only 1 second (B stops at 0:08).\n2.  At [0:31], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. This overlap is also brief, lasting 1 second (A stops at 0:32), and signals engagement and interest in Speaker A's story.\nThere are no extended overlaps.\nRegarding pauses, there are two brief pauses of 1 second each: between [0:19] and [0:20], and between [0:34] and [0:35]. These are natural and do not constitute \"long pauses\" that would hinder fluency. Overall, the pacing and turn-taking feel very natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--3272",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, it's been a while.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yeah, it has. How have you been?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: I've been good. Just busy with work and stuff. You know how it gets when\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Oh, speaking of work, did you ever finish that big project you were working on last time we talked?\n[00:14 - 00:23] Speaker A: Yeah, I did. It was a lot of work, but everything turned out well in the end. So, what have you been up to lately? Anything exciting?\n[00:24 - 00:33] Speaker B: Not too much, just the usual stuff. You know, work and hanging out with friends. Nothing too exciting. But I did just get back from a trip to Europe last week. That was pretty cool.\n[00:34 - 00:37] Speaker A: Oh wow, that sounds amazing! What was your favorite part?\n[00:38 - 00:44] Speaker B: There were so many highlights, but if I had to choose one it would probably be when we went to Paris and saw the Eiffel Tower lit\n[00:44 - 00:50] Speaker A: The Eiffel Tower? I've always wanted to see it in person. Was it as breathtaking as everyone says?\n[00:51 - 00:58] Speaker B: Absolutely, it was even better than I imagined. The view from the top was incredible. I definitely recommend going if you ever get the chance.\n[00:58 - 01:03] Speaker A: Yeah, I've always wanted to go to Europe. It sounds like you had a great time.\n[01:04 - 01:08] Speaker B: Yeah, it was a lot of fun. I'm definitely planning on going back at some point.\n[01:09 - 01:13] Speaker A: Well, I hope you do. I'm sure you'll have another great time.\n[01:13 - 01:14] Speaker B: Thanks. I think I will.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speakers directly answer questions, acknowledge previous statements, and build upon each other's contributions. For instance, Speaker B's \"Oh, speaking of work...\" at [00:09] is a smooth and relevant transition based on Speaker A's mention of \"work.\" Similarly, Speaker A's interjection \"The Eiffel Tower?\" at [00:44] directly picks up on Speaker B's previous statement and leads to a relevant follow-up question. The topic coherence is strong, flowing naturally from general greetings and life updates to a specific, engaging discussion about travel, and then concluding. There are no instances where a speaker's response is out of context or illogically connected to the previous turn.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is highly natural and appropriate. There are no instances of long pauses between speaker turns; the maximum pause observed is typically 1 second, which falls under \"small pauses\" and is acceptable for natural conversation. For example, the pause between [00:01] and [00:02], or [00:23] and [00:24], are brief and natural. There are a couple of brief overlaps, such as Speaker B interrupting Speaker A at [00:09] and Speaker A interrupting Speaker B at [00:44]. These are not \"extended overlaps\" but rather quick, natural interjections that demonstrate active listening and engagement, serving to quickly introduce a new question or follow up on a detail. They contribute to the dynamic and fluid nature of the conversation, rather than hindering it.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--191",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi, Walter!\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Hi, Sterling!\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker A: What do you think of our new teacher?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: Professor Wood? I think he's a brilliant researcher, but\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but do you mean brilliant in terms of his research or his teaching style?\n[00:14 - 00:22] Speaker B: Mostly his research. But I was going to say he's a brilliant scientist. However, I also noticed that he seems a bit absent-minded at times.\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker A: You've got a point there. But do you think he's a little absent-minded?\n[00:27 - 00:28] Speaker B: I guess so.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance.\n*   **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B clarifies Professor Wood's identity and then offers an initial assessment. Speaker A's interruption is a highly relevant clarification question, directly addressing the ambiguity in Speaker B's \"brilliant\" comment. Speaker B then answers the clarification and continues their original thought, adding a new observation. Speaker A then acknowledges B's point and logically probes deeper into the \"absent-minded\" aspect, which was just introduced. Speaker B's final response is a direct answer.\n*   **Topic Coherence:** The conversation consistently stays on the topic of \"our new teacher,\" Professor Wood, and his characteristics. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant detours. The clarification and follow-up questions serve to deepen the discussion on the same subject.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap at [00:08 - 00:09] where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. However, this overlap is very short (1 second) and immediately acknowledged by Speaker A with \"Sorry to jump in.\" This is a natural conversational phenomenon, often used for clarification or eager participation, and is not an \"extended\" or \"harmful\" overlap. It facilitates the flow rather than hinders it.\n*   **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses are minimal (e.g., 1 second between [00:13] and [00:14], and 1 second between [00:26] and [00:27]), reflecting a natural, flowing conversation where speakers are engaged and responsive. These short pauses are perfectly acceptable and do not disrupt the conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 4
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--89650",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: So you're telling me that I'm going to meet a tall, dark, and handsome stranger who's going to sweep me off my feet and we'll live happily ever after?\n[00:08 - 00:16] Speaker B: Yes, that is what I see in your future. This man will come into your life and sweep you away. You'll be head over heels for him and you'll have a deep connection\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: Wait, are you sure about this? I mean, what if I'm not ready for someone like that?\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: I understand your hesitation, but according to what I see, you'll be ready when he arrives. You'll be very happy together.\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker A: Well, I don't know about all of that but it does sound nice. I hope he comes soon!\n[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker B: He will, Ingrid. Just be patient and wait for him to enter your\n[00:37 - 00:40] Speaker A: But what if he doesn't? What if I miss him somehow?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently responds to Speaker A's questions and concerns, maintaining a coherent narrative about future predictions. Speaker A's reactions (hesitation, hope, doubt) are natural and logically follow from Speaker B's statements. The conversation flows smoothly from one turn to the next, building on previous statements and demonstrating clear topic coherence. There are no irrelevant turns or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  [00:15 - 00:16] Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing a sentence. This is a 1-second overlap and represents a natural conversational interruption where Speaker A is eager to interject with a question, which is an acceptable brief overlap.\n2.  [00:37] Speaker A interrupts Speaker B mid-sentence. This is a very brief overlap (less than a second, at the exact timestamp) and serves to convey Speaker A's immediate doubt and anxiety, which is a natural feature of dynamic conversation.\nThere are no long pauses; the turns are taken promptly (e.g., 1-second gaps like [00:27]-[00:28] and [00:32]-[00:33] are perfectly natural and not considered prolonged). The brief overlaps and short pauses contribute to a natural and dynamic conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--447",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: How about we all go for a meal at the Pizza Experience this evening?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: We went to the Pizza Experience last Wednesday, didn't we?\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: Yes, we did, and the time before that, why don't we go to the Steakhouse.\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker B: But Bridget doesn't eat meat, so the\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker A: Oh, right! I forgot. What about the Kingfisher? She eats fish, doesn't she?\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker B: Yes, she does, but Arthur doesn't. I was going to ask, you mentioned the Steakhouse earlier—what were you going to say about it before I interrupted?\n[00:26 - 00:33] Speaker A: I was just thinking it might be a nice change, but yeah, it won't work for Bridget. How about we try the Carrots?\n[00:34 - 00:38] Speaker B: Oh yes, we've had lunch there a couple of times, haven't we? It's a good option for everyone.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the conversation to reach a shared goal (choosing a restaurant).\n- Speaker B's initial query about going to the Pizza Experience again is a relevant challenge to Speaker A's suggestion.\n- Speaker A then offers a new, relevant suggestion (Steakhouse) after acknowledging B's point.\n- Speaker B introduces a valid constraint (Bridget's diet) which directly impacts the Steakhouse suggestion.\n- Speaker A's immediate \"Oh, right! I forgot\" shows direct acknowledgment and then offers another relevant alternative (Kingfisher).\n- Speaker B's response about Arthur's diet is another relevant constraint, but crucially, Speaker B also demonstrates high interactional awareness by circling back to Speaker A's interrupted thought about the Steakhouse, which is excellent for logical consistency and coherence within the flow of ideas.\n- Speaker A clarifies their previous point and then provides a new, relevant suggestion (Carrots).\n- Speaker B affirms the final suggestion, highlighting its suitability for everyone, directly addressing the constraints raised earlier.\nThe topic remains consistently about choosing a dining location, with all turns contributing to this central theme by either suggesting, questioning, or providing constraints. There are no irrelevant tangents or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses identified (e.g., 00:03-00:04, 00:06-00:07, 00:11-00:12, 00:18-00:19, 00:33-00:34) are all approximately 1 second, which are brief and natural, indicative of a smooth conversational flow.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap identified:\n    - [00:14 - 00:18] Speaker A: \"Oh, right! I forgot. What about the Kingfisher? She eats fish, doesn't she?\" starts during [00:12 - 00:15] Speaker B's \"But Bridget doesn't eat meat, so the\". This is about a 1-second overlap (00:14-00:15). This is a very natural and acceptable brief overlap, where Speaker A appears to have a sudden realization (\"Oh, right! I forgot\") and quickly interjects, not to dominate the conversation but to acknowledge and immediately correct their oversight. It doesn't disrupt the flow; rather, it makes the interaction feel more spontaneous and realistic. Speaker B doesn't seem deterred by it and smoothly continues the conversation in their next turn.\nThe transitions between speakers are quick and natural, suggesting a highly interactive and engaged conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--437",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Taxi! Taxi!\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Where to, sir?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'd like to go to the railway station I have\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but do you have a specific train to catch? The traffic is quite heavy right now.\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker A: No, I'm not in a hurry. But I was asking if it's a long run to the station?\n[00:16 - 00:17] Speaker B: It'll take about 20 minutes.\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker A: The streets are heavy with traffic at this time of the day, are they?\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker B: Yes, they are. It's the rush hour now.\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker A: Would you please drive slowly and carefully?\n[00:27 - 00:28] Speaker B: Yes, sir.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout.\n1.  **[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Where to, sir?** - Perfectly relevant to Speaker A hailing a taxi.\n2.  **[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but do you have a specific train to catch? The traffic is quite heavy right now.** - Although an interruption, Speaker B's question is highly relevant to Speaker A's destination (railway station). It shows a proactive concern for the passenger's schedule in light of traffic conditions, maintaining logical consistency and topic coherence.\n3.  **[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker A: No, I'm not in a hurry. But I was asking if it's a long run to the station?** - Directly answers B's question about urgency and then clarifies the original intent of the interrupted statement, showing clear coherence.\n4.  **[00:16 - 00:17] Speaker B: It'll take about 20 minutes.** - A direct and relevant answer to A's question.\n5.  **[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker A: The streets are heavy with traffic at this time of the day, are they?** - A logical follow-up question building on B's previous mention of heavy traffic.\n6.  **[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker B: Yes, they are. It's the rush hour now.** - Confirms A's observation and provides a logical reason.\n7.  **[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker A: Would you please drive slowly and carefully?** - A very logical request based on the confirmed heavy traffic and A's earlier statement of not being in a hurry.\n8.  **[00:27 - 00:28] Speaker B: Yes, sir.** - A clear and appropriate affirmative response to A's request.\nAll turns contribute meaningfully to the conversation, building on previous information and leading to a logical conclusion regarding the taxi ride.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits very good fluency with only one notable aspect to consider:\n1.  **Overlap [00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B:** There is an overlap where Speaker B starts speaking at `00:04` while Speaker A is still speaking until `00:05`. This means the overlap is approximately 1 second long. Speaker B immediately says, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness of the overlap and politeness. Given the duration (1 second) and the apology, this falls into the category of a \"brief overlap\" which is explicitly stated as acceptable in the scoring criteria, rather than a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlapping turn. It does not disrupt comprehension or the flow negatively; rather, it indicates a natural, albeit eager, attempt by Speaker B to be helpful and proactive.\n2.  **Pauses:** There are no instances of long or prolonged pauses between speaker turns. The turn-taking is swift and natural throughout the dialogue, contributing to a fluid conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--579",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey! I've been knitting a lot lately. Do you know how to knit?\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: No. What's knitting?\n[00:06 - 00:26] Speaker A: Knitting is basically the process of creating different shapes. You'll need yarn, and some knitting needles. You'll also need a special type of yarn that is softer and easier to handle than the more typical wool yarn. The more typical yarn can sometimes get really scratchy if you work with it for too long, but the special yarn won't irritate your hands as much.\n[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker B: That sounds interesting. Is it difficult to learn?\n[00:29 - 00:37] Speaker A: No, it is actually really easy to learn how to knit. I think anyone could learn in a matter of minutes, and then you'd be able to\n[00:36 - 00:44] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but what kind of shapes can you make with knitting? Are we talking about simple things like scarves, or can you make more complex items?\n[00:44 - 00:54] Speaker A: You can make a wide variety of items, from simple scarves to complex sweaters and even stuffed animals. But I didn't finish explaining that once you learn the basics, you can\n[00:53 - 00:59] Speaker B: Oh, I see! So, it's really versatile. I guess it also depends on the type of yarn and needles you use, right?\n[01:00 - 01:06] Speaker A: Exactly, and once you learn the basics, you'd be good to go! Well, I'll keep it in mind. Thanks!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally exhibits good response relevance and topic coherence throughout most of its turns. Speaker A consistently explains knitting, and Speaker B asks relevant follow-up questions, showing engagement and guiding the conversation naturally.\n\nHowever, there is a significant issue in the final turn attributed to Speaker A ([01:00 - 01:06]). Speaker A states: \"Exactly, and once you learn the basics, you'd be good to go! Well, I'll keep it in mind. Thanks!\" The first part of this sentence (\"Exactly, and once you learn the basics, you'd be good to go!\") is logically consistent as Speaker A is the one explaining. However, the phrases \"Well, I'll keep it in mind. Thanks!\" are phrases typically used by the *listener* (Speaker B in this context) to acknowledge information and conclude a conversation. Attributing these lines to Speaker A, who is the explainer, creates a clear break in logical consistency and role adherence. It makes Speaker A's final statement contradictory to their role in the dialogue. This is a significant issue in logical consistency for the speaker's role.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are two instances of brief overlap:\n1.  [00:36 - 00:44] Speaker B begins their turn at 00:36, while Speaker A's previous turn ends at 00:37. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), acknowledging the overlap, which mitigates its impact and maintains politeness.\n2.  [00:53 - 00:59] Speaker B begins their turn at 00:53, while Speaker A's previous turn ends at 00:54. This is also a 1-second overlap.\n\nBoth overlaps are brief and fall within the acceptable range as per the instructions (\"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\"). There are no prolonged pauses detected between turns. The flow of conversation is natural and dynamic, indicating good interactional fluency despite these minor, acceptable overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--686",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: You know, I know everything there is to know about the American Revolution.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: Really? Tell me about it!\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: You know, I could show you what I learned in my history class.\n[00:10 - 00:11] Speaker B: That would be really interesting.\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but could you give me a brief overview first? I'm really curious about the key events.\n[00:18 - 00:33] Speaker A: Sure! The American Revolution was a colonial revolt that took place between 1765 and 1783. The Thirteen American Colonies won independence from Great Britain, leading to the formation of the United States.\n[00:33 - 00:35] Speaker B: That's fascinating! Ok, where should I send it?\n[00:36 - 00:39] Speaker A: The address is carlg@gmx.de.\n[00:39 - 00:41] Speaker B: I will start working on it right away.\n[00:41 - 00:42] Speaker A: Thanks!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in logical consistency and topic coherence.\n1.  **Logical Inconsistency in Speaker A's Role:** At `[00:00 - 00:04]`, Speaker A claims extensive knowledge of the American Revolution. At `[00:06 - 00:09]`, Speaker A offers to \"show\" what they learned. However, at `[00:10 - 00:17]`, Speaker A abruptly reverses roles, asking Speaker B \"could *you* give me a brief overview first?\". This is a direct contradiction of their initial claims and offer, making Speaker A's subsequent action of providing the overview at `[00:18 - 00:33]` illogical given their own preceding request. It implies a severe lack of consistency in Speaker A's persona or memory within the conversation.\n2.  **Abrupt Topic Shift:** At `[00:33 - 00:35]`, Speaker B abruptly introduces a completely new topic with \"Ok, where should I send it?\". There is no prior context, discussion, or logical lead-in for sending anything. The conversation was solely focused on the American Revolution. This constitutes a severe break in topic coherence.\n3.  **Maintaining Irrelevant Topic:** Both Speaker A and Speaker B then proceed to engage with this new, irrelevant topic about an email address (`[00:36 - 00:42]`), completely abandoning the initial subject of the American Revolution without any explanation or transition.\n\nThese issues demonstrate a significant breakdown in response relevance and topic coherence throughout the dialogue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally acceptable according to the given criteria, as there are no prolonged pauses or extended overlaps.\n1.  **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap at `[00:10 - 00:11]` where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. Speaker A even acknowledges this by saying \"Sorry to interrupt\". This overlap lasts for approximately 1 second. As per the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" so this does not constitute a significant issue in terms of duration.\n2.  **Pauses:** All pauses between speaker turns are brief (typically 0-1 second), which are considered acceptable. For instance, `[00:05 - 00:06]`, `[00:09 - 00:10]`, `[00:17 - 00:18]`, and `[00:35 - 00:36]` all show a 1-second gap, which is not considered a long pause.\nTherefore, the interaction flows without significant interruptions in terms of timing.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--79728",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I don't know why you always have to be so loud. It's like you're doing it just to get on\n[00:04 - 00:13] Speaker B: We're not trying to spite you, we're just living our lives. But I do understand where you're coming from. Is there a specific time of day when the noise is most bothersome to you?\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker A: It's always so loud! And it's always at the most inconvenient times. I can never get any peace and quiet when you're having those\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker B: I get it, and we really don't want to make you uncomfortable. Maybe we can work out a schedule or something to avoid those times?\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker A: Well, could you at least try to be more considerate? It would mean a lot to me if you guys would just tone it down a bit.\n[00:34 - 00:36] Speaker B: We'll try our best, but no promises.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates the conversation by expressing frustration about noise, and Speaker B immediately responds by acknowledging the concern, defending their actions gently, and proposing a way forward by asking for specifics (\"Is there a specific time of day when the noise is most bothersome to you?\"). Speaker A, while not providing precise times, reiterates the inconvenience, which Speaker B then responds to by offering to \"work out a schedule or something to avoid those times.\" Speaker A then shifts to a more general request for \"consideration\" and to \"tone it down,\" which Speaker B agrees to try, albeit with realistic caveats. The conversation stays consistently on the topic of noise and its resolution, with each turn building logically on the previous one. There are no sudden topic shifts or irrelevant statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are a couple of brief overlaps (e.g., Speaker B starting at 0:04 while Speaker A finishes at 0:05, and Speaker B starting at 0:20 while Speaker A finishes at 0:21). Both of these are 1-second overlaps, which are considered brief and natural in conversation, indicating active listening and turn-taking rather than prolonged interruptions. Similarly, the pauses between turns (e.g., 1 second between 0:26 and 0:27, and 1 second between 0:33 and 0:34) are short and natural, allowing for smooth conversational flow without any awkward long silences. The dialogue feels natural and fluid.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--135393",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Mia, can you believe it? The party is finally here!\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: I know, I can't wait to see what you've been up to. You've been planning this for weeks, and\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A: Actually, I wanted to ask you—do you think the decorations are too much? I might have gone a little overboard.\n[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker B: I'm sure they're perfect! So, what exactly have you been up to?\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker A: Well, I've been decorating the house and getting everything ready. I even made some special snacks and prepared a\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker B: Oh, speaking of snacks, do you need help setting up the food table? I noticed it was still empty when I walked in.\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker A: Oh, yes! That would be great. I was just about to finish that up. Thanks for helping me, Mia.\n[00:38 - 00:40] Speaker B: Of course! That's what friends are for.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial query about Speaker A's preparations leads to Speaker A's concern about decorations. Speaker B then adeptly steers back to the broader question of \"what exactly have you been up to,\" demonstrating logical follow-through. Speaker A's subsequent mention of \"snacks\" is then picked up by Speaker B to offer relevant help with the food table. Each turn builds on the previous one, showing attentiveness and maintaining a clear conversational thread. There are no illogical jumps, contradictions, or irrelevant statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  From 00:08 to 00:10, Speaker A starts while Speaker B's sentence (\"...and\") is trailing off. This is a natural interruption, indicating eagerness or a quick transition, rather than a disruptive overlap. Speaker B's sentence was incomplete anyway, so Speaker A's interjection feels natural.\n2.  From 00:25 to 00:26, Speaker B begins speaking right as Speaker A's sentence (\"...and prepared a\") trails off. This is also a very brief and natural overlap, where Speaker B picks up on a keyword (\"snacks\") mentioned by Speaker A.\nNeither of these overlaps are extended or harmful; they contribute to the natural, flowing rhythm of the conversation. There are no long pauses between turns, and the conversation progresses smoothly without any awkward silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--95245",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Sarah. How are you doing?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm doing alright. How are you?\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm feeling pretty down today.\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker B: What's wrong?\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: I don't know. I just feel like everything is pointless and that I'll never find a\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: Hold on, have you been feeling this way for a while, or did something specific trigger it today?\n[00:18 - 00:28] Speaker A: It's been building up for a while, but today just feels worse. I was going to say I'll never be happy again, but honestly, I don't even know why I feel this way.\n[00:29 - 00:33] Speaker B: That sounds really tough. I'm here for you, though. We can get through this together.\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker A: Thank you, Sarah. Just knowing you're here for me makes me feel a little better.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency.\nSpeaker A initiates by expressing feeling down, and Speaker B immediately asks a relevant follow-up (\"What's wrong?\"). Speaker A elaborates on their feelings, and Speaker B's subsequent interjection (\"Hold on, have you been feeling this way for a while, or did something specific trigger it today?\") is highly relevant and empathetic, seeking to understand the depth and origin of Speaker A's distress. Speaker A directly answers this question, providing more context. Finally, Speaker B offers support, which is a perfectly coherent and appropriate response to someone sharing their vulnerability. Speaker A's gratitude closes the interaction naturally. The topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on Speaker A's emotional state and Speaker B's supportive response.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction flows very naturally with no long pauses that would disrupt the conversation. There is one brief overlap identified:\n- At `00:13`, Speaker B starts speaking (\"Hold on...\") while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence (\"...I'll never find a\"). This results in a 1-second overlap.\nWhile Speaker A's sentence is cut off, Speaker B's \"Hold on\" explicitly signals an interruption, which can be a natural part of dynamic conversation. Critically, this overlap is brief and does not lead to confusion or a breakdown in communication. Speaker A processes the interruption and addresses Speaker B's clarifying question directly in their next turn, even referencing their interrupted thought (\"I was going to say I'll never be happy again\"). Given the prompt's allowance for \"brief overlaps in conversation\" as acceptable, this instance does not qualify as a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap. The overall rhythm and turn-taking feel natural and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--139481",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi there. Are you okay?\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: No, not really. I just found out that my husband is cheating on me with\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: Oh my gosh, I'm so sorry to hear that. How did you find out?\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker B: I saw some messages on his phone. I thought I could trust him, but now I don't know what to believe anymore. It's like everything I thought was true is turned upside down, and\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: I can't even imagine how disorienting that must be. Have you confronted him about it yet?\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker B: No, I haven't. I just feel so betrayed and alone.\n[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker A: You're not alone. I'm here with you. And I'll listen if you want to talk about it more.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Speaker A's turns consistently follow Speaker B's statements logically and coherently.\n- Speaker A initiates by checking on Speaker B's well-being.\n- Upon Speaker B's revelation, Speaker A expresses immediate empathy (\"Oh my gosh, I'm so sorry to hear that\") and asks a relevant follow-up question (\"How did you find out?\").\n- After Speaker B describes their emotional state, Speaker A validates their feelings (\"I can't even imagine how disorienting that must be\") and poses another logical next question (\"Have you confronted him about it yet?\").\n- Finally, when Speaker B expresses feeling \"alone,\" Speaker A directly addresses this by offering reassurance and support (\"You're not alone. I'm here with you. And I'll listen...\").\nThe conversation flows naturally, maintaining topic coherence throughout, and Speaker A's responses are always appropriate and supportive given the sensitive nature of the topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses that would disrupt the conversation flow. The overlaps detected are brief (1 second each) and appear to be natural instances of turn-taking in an engaged conversation, rather than problematic interruptions.\n- At [00:04], Speaker A interjects \"Oh my gosh, I'm so sorry...\" while Speaker B is finishing \"with\", which is a common way to express immediate sympathy and engagement.\n- At [00:16], Speaker A begins \"I can't even imagine...\" as Speaker B is finishing \"and\", again indicating active listening and a natural transition into the next empathetic statement and question.\nThese brief overlaps do not hinder understanding or signal conversational breakdown; instead, they contribute to a sense of natural, dynamic dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--120148",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey! I haven't seen you in forever. How are you?\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: I'm good, I'm good. Just got back from college and thought I'd come say hi. You look like you've\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: College? How was that? I've been meaning to ask how you've been adjusting to everything.\n[00:14 - 00:22] Speaker B: It was a bit overwhelming at first, but I eventually got the hang of it. Mostly, I was just studying and hanging out with friends. What about you?\n[00:23 - 00:32] Speaker A: Yeah, same here. Just finished up my degree and now I'm looking for a job. It's been tough, but I'm sure something will work out\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker B: Oh, job hunting! What field are you looking into? I might know someone who could help.\n[00:36 - 00:44] Speaker A: That would be amazing! I'm actually looking into marketing roles. I was going to say that something will come up soon, but any help would be great.\n[00:44 - 00:52] Speaker B: Marketing? I'll check with my contacts and let you know. In the meantime, do you want to grab a coffee or something? Catch up on old times?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the information shared and maintaining a coherent topic flow.\n- Speaker A initiates with a warm greeting and inquiry.\n- Speaker B responds directly, sharing an update about college, which sets up the next conversational turn.\n- Speaker A picks up on \"college\" and asks a relevant follow-up question, indicating active listening and interest.\n- Speaker B answers the question about college and smoothly redirects the conversation back to Speaker A (\"What about you?\"), ensuring a balanced exchange.\n- Speaker A provides a personal update about finishing their degree and job hunting, directly responding to B's question.\n- Speaker B actively listens and immediately offers help related to job hunting, demonstrating engagement and helpfulness.\n- Speaker A responds enthusiastically and specifies the field, further progressing the conversation.\n- Speaker B acknowledges the field, reiterates the offer of help, and then naturally transitions to a social invitation (grabbing coffee), which is highly appropriate given the initial context of \"haven't seen you in forever.\"\nThere are no instances of topic drift, irrelevant responses, or logical inconsistencies. The conversation flows very naturally and purposefully.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n- **Overlaps:**\n  - [00:08 - 00:09] (1 second overlap): Speaker A begins \"College? How was that?\" as Speaker B is finishing \"You look like you've\". This is a very brief, natural overlap, common in eager conversation where one speaker anticipates the other's turn or interjects. It doesn't hinder understanding.\n  - [00:30 - 00:32] (2 seconds overlap): Speaker B starts with \"Oh, job hunting!\" while Speaker A is completing \"but I'm sure something will work out\". This is also a brief, natural overlap, indicating enthusiasm or active processing of the previous statement, rather than disruptive talk-over.\nNeither of these are \"extended overlaps\" that would be harmful to the conversation.\n- **Pauses:**\n  - [00:13 - 00:14] (1 second pause): Between A's question and B's answer.\n  - [00:22 - 00:23] (1 second pause): Between B's question and A's answer.\n  - [00:35 - 00:36] (1 second pause): Between B's offer and A's acceptance.\nThese are all short, natural pauses that allow for processing and turn-taking without feeling awkward or prolonged. There are no \"long pauses\" that would disrupt the flow.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking feel very natural and fluid, indicative of a smooth conversation between two individuals.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--75931",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, boss. How's it going?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Not too bad. We're just trying to stay busy. You know how it is\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker A: Actually, speaking of staying busy, I noticed we've been short-staffed a lot lately. Is that something we're working on?\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker B: Yeah, it's been challenging. Well, we're short-staffed today and I was wondering if you could stay a little longer to\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker A: Of course, I can stay late today. But do we have a plan to address this long term?\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker B: We're working on it, but for now, I really appreciate your flexibility. Thanks, Sherri.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** Each turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B's initial comment about \"staying busy\" organically leads Speaker A to bring up the related issue of being \"short-staffed.\" Speaker B then confirms this and makes an immediate request, which Speaker A addresses directly before reiterating the long-term concern. Speaker B then provides a concise answer to the long-term plan while reinforcing the appreciation for immediate help. The conversation progresses naturally and makes sense.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The core topic of being short-staffed and its implications (the need to stay busy, requesting overtime, and the need for a long-term solution) is consistently maintained throughout the dialogue. There are no digressions or irrelevant statements. Each speaker contributes to the development of this single theme.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There are two very brief overlaps identified:\n    *   [00:04 - 00:11] Speaker A starts at 0:04 while Speaker B finishes at 0:05. This is a 1-second overlap.\n    *   [00:17 - 00:22] Speaker A starts at 0:17 while Speaker B finishes at 0:18. This is a 1-second overlap.\n    These overlaps are extremely short (1 second each) and are typical of natural, fast-paced conversation where one speaker anticipates or briefly jumps in after another's statement. They do not disrupt the flow or clarity of the dialogue; rather, they contribute to a sense of natural interaction. As per the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\"\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between speakers are quick and seamless, indicating a smooth and natural conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--24198",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I don't know who I am anymore. I feel like I'm losing control over\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: What do you mean by losing control? Are you feeling overwhelmed by something specific?\n[00:07 - 00:16] Speaker A: I just feel like everything is against me. I'm angry all the time and I lash out at people. I don't know how to deal with these feelings\n[00:15 - 00:24] Speaker B: Patricia, it sounds like you're going through a tough time right now. But you're not alone. I'm here for you, no matter what. We'll figure this out together, okay?\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: Thanks, Sarah. Just knowing you're here for me makes me feel a little better.\n[00:29 - 00:31] Speaker B: Of course, Patricia. I love you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate excellent relevance, logical consistency, and topic coherence.\n\n*   **[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B:** Responds directly to Speaker A's \"losing control\" by asking for clarification and probing for specific reasons (\"Are you feeling overwhelmed by something specific?\"). This is highly relevant and encourages Speaker A to elaborate.\n*   **[00:15 - 00:24] Speaker B:** Acknowledges Speaker A's expressed feelings of anger and distress (\"it sounds like you're going through a tough time\") and provides empathetic support and reassurance (\"But you're not alone. I'm here for you, no matter what. We'll figure this out together\"). This response is perfectly aligned with the emotional state and topic introduced by Speaker A.\n*   **[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A:** Expresses gratitude for Speaker B's support, directly referencing B's previous statement (\"Just knowing you're here for me makes me feel a little better\"). This maintains the logical flow of the emotional exchange.\n*   **[00:29 - 00:31] Speaker B:** Offers a brief, supportive closing (\"Of course, Patricia. I love you.\"), which is a natural and consistent follow-up to Speaker A's appreciation in a close relationship.\n\nOverall, the conversation progresses logically, with each speaker's turn building upon the previous one in a coherent and emotionally appropriate manner.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps identified:\n    *   `[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B` overlaps with `[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A`. The overlap is from 0:03 to 0:04, lasting approximately 1 second. This is a very short overlap and is indicative of active listening and eager, but not interruptive, turn-taking. Speaker B jumps in with a clarifying question as Speaker A is still finishing their thought, which is common in natural conversation and not disruptive.\n    *   `[00:15 - 00:24] Speaker B` overlaps with `[00:07 - 00:16] Speaker A`. The overlap is from 0:15 to 0:16, lasting approximately 1 second. Similar to the previous overlap, this is very brief and suggests Speaker B is processing Speaker A's statement and is ready to offer support, rather than interrupting.\n\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are smooth and immediate, contributing to a natural and dynamic conversation flow.\n\nNeither of the identified overlaps are extended or prolonged, and there are no long pauses. This indicates excellent interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--433",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi, is that Sara?\n[00:02 - 00:02] Speaker B: Speaking.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: This is Tom. Sorry to bother you at supper but it's\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: Oh, don't worry about it. What's going on?\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: My little girl Maria has a high fever. We're taking her to the hospital in a short time.\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: I'm really sorry to hear that. Is there anything I can do for you?\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker A: Do you mind taking care of my son Ken? We can't take him with us\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B: Of course, I can help. Should I bring him to my house, or do you want me to come over?\n[00:26 - 00:35] Speaker A: Thank you. Actually, I was going to say we can't take him along to the hospital. And yes, you can bring him to your house. But he hasn't finished his dinner yet.\n[00:35 - 00:39] Speaker B: No problem at all. He can have dinner with us, and then my son will play games with him.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence throughout the conversation.\n- Speaker A initiates the call, introduces themselves, and immediately hints at an urgent matter (\"Sorry to bother you at supper but it's\").\n- Speaker B responds appropriately by accepting the call and prompting Speaker A to explain the situation (\"Oh, don't worry about it. What's going on?\").\n- Speaker A then clearly states the emergency (daughter's fever, going to hospital).\n- Speaker B offers help (\"Is there anything I can do for you?\"), which directly leads to Speaker A's request (taking care of Ken).\n- Speaker B readily agrees and proactively asks for clarification on logistics (\"Should I bring him to my house, or do you want me to come over?\").\n- Speaker A confirms the logistics and adds a detail about dinner, which Speaker B addresses immediately with a practical solution (\"He can have dinner with us, and then my son will play games with him.\").\nThe progression of information, requests, and solutions is very natural and coherent. There are no irrelevant statements or sudden topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is also excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural flow of conversation.\nThere are a couple of brief overlaps, specifically:\n- [00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B starts while Speaker A is still saying \"it's\" ([00:03 - 00:06]). This is a brief, natural interjection (\"Oh, don't worry about it. What's going on?\") where Speaker B anticipates Speaker A's apology and encourages them to continue, which is common in supportive conversational exchanges.\n- [00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B starts while Speaker A is finishing \"with us\" ([00:17 - 00:22]). Again, this is a brief, cooperative overlap (\"Of course, I can help.\") demonstrating active listening and eagerness to assist, rather than a disruptive prolonged overlap.\nAs per the instructions, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these examples fall into that category. They contribute to the naturalness of the dialogue rather than detracting from it.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--135875",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Alex. How was your day?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Pretty good. I got a lot done at work. And how was your [interrupt]\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say \"a lot done,\" do you mean you finally finished that big project you've been working on?\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: Not exactly. I still have a few things left, but I made significant progress. How was your day?\n[00:19 - 00:27] Speaker A: It was alright. I had to run a lot of errands, but it's all done now. So, what did you do at work today?\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker B: Well, I had a lot of meetings. And then I had to get some work done on the computer. But I'm glad it's finally the\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker A: Oh, speaking of meetings, did you manage to catch up with Sarah about the new proposal?\n[00:38 - 00:42] Speaker B: Yes, we discussed it briefly. But as I was saying, I'm glad it's Friday!\n[00:42 - 00:46] Speaker A: Yeah, me too. So, what do you want to do this weekend?\n[00:46 - 00:48] Speaker B: I don't know. What do you want to do?\n[00:48 - 00:51] Speaker A: Well, we could go see a movie or something.\n[00:51 - 00:53] Speaker B: That sounds like fun! Let's do that!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's response directly builds upon or answers the previous turn. For instance, Speaker A clarifies Speaker B's \"a lot done\" (00:05-00:12), and Speaker B responds directly to that clarification (00:13-00:19). Later, Speaker A follows up on Speaker B's mention of \"meetings\" with a specific question about Sarah and a proposal (00:33-00:38), which Speaker B addresses before returning to their original thought (00:38-00:42). The conversation about weekend plans also flows naturally from the \"glad it's Friday\" sentiment.\n- **Topic Coherence:** The conversation maintains a clear, evolving topic. It starts with general greetings and daily updates, smoothly transitions into work details, touches upon specific work-related tasks (project, meetings, proposal), then shifts to the end of the week and weekend plans. The transitions are natural and signaled by phrases like \"Sorry to interrupt, but when you say...\", \"So, what did you do...\", \"Oh, speaking of meetings...\", and \"But as I was saying...\". There are no abrupt or irrelevant topic changes.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe interaction demonstrates a high degree of natural fluency, including acceptable brief overlaps.\n- **Extended Overlaps:** There are two instances of overlap:\n    1.  [00:05 - 00:06] Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. This is a brief, 1-second overlap. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges it by saying \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which is a common and natural conversational repair mechanism. This is not an extended or disruptive overlap.\n    2.  [00:33 - 00:34] Speaker A interrupts Speaker B again. This is also a brief, 1-second overlap. Speaker A uses a clear linking phrase (\"Oh, speaking of meetings\") to connect their interruption to Speaker B's preceding statement, making it a highly relevant and non-disruptive interjection. Speaker B also successfully manages to complete their original thought (\"But as I was saying, I'm glad it's Friday!\") after answering the interruption, demonstrating good conversational flow rather than a breakdown.\nNeither of these overlaps are prolonged or indicate a lack of turn-taking ability; rather, they suggest a dynamic and engaged conversation.\n- **Long Pauses:** There are no instances of long pauses between speaker turns. The timestamps indicate a rapid and continuous exchange, with minimal gaps (e.g., 1 second between [00:02] and [00:03], and [00:12] and [00:13]). Many turns start immediately as the previous speaker finishes or even slightly overlaps, which contributes to a natural, fluid pace.\nThe interaction flows very smoothly, resembling natural human conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--515",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I was just reading about child discipline techniques. The most effective seems to be the \"five-second rule.\"\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: What is the five-second rule?\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A: If a child takes something of yours and doesn't drop it immediately, you can give them the five-second rule to encourage them\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: I'm not too sure about that. The thing is, you can't physically force a child to give you something.\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker A: I don't want to force her! I just want to stop her from taking things without\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker B: I understand your concern. Maybe there is some other technique that you could use.\n[00:28 - 00:35] Speaker A: Can you recommend anything? I was actually going to explain more about the five-second rule and how it works psychologically.\n[00:35 - 00:38] Speaker B: I guess what I'm getting at is that parenting is really tricky.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates good response relevance throughout.\n- Speaker B's initial question \"What is the five-second rule?\" is a direct and logical follow-up to Speaker A's introduction of the rule.\n- Speaker B's concern \"I'm not too sure about that. The thing is, you can't physically force a child to give you something\" directly addresses the implied physical aspect of Speaker A's incomplete explanation.\n- Speaker A's clarification \"I don't want to force her! I just want to stop her from taking things without\" directly responds to Speaker B's concern and clarifies their intent.\n- Speaker B's \"I understand your concern. Maybe there is some other technique that you could use\" acknowledges A's feelings and proposes a relevant alternative path for the conversation.\n- Speaker A's \"Can you recommend anything?\" directly follows B's suggestion for other techniques. While A then adds \"I was actually going to explain more about the five-second rule and how it works psychologically,\" this isn't a breakdown in relevance. It indicates A's desire to further explain their original point, which is a common and natural conversational move, rather than a non-sequitur or misunderstanding. It shows a slight pull back to their original topic, but it's still coherent within the broader discussion of child discipline.\n- Speaker B's final response \"I guess what I'm getting at is that parenting is really tricky\" is a general observation. While it doesn't directly answer A's request for a recommendation, it serves as a meta-commentary on the difficulty of the topic being discussed, which is logically consistent with the preceding conversation about discipline techniques and disagreements. It's a way of concluding or generalizing the point without committing to a specific recommendation, which isn't an issue of relevance or consistency.\nThe topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on child discipline and parenting. There are no illogical jumps or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- The dialogue features two instances of brief, acceptable overlaps:\n    - [00:14] Speaker B starts while Speaker A is finishing at [00:15]. This overlap is approximately 1 second and is natural, indicating active listening and turn-taking without interruption.\n    - [00:23] Speaker B starts while Speaker A is finishing at [00:24]. This overlap is also approximately 1 second and is brief and natural, similar to the previous one.\n- There are no extended overlaps detected.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and natural, typically less than 1 second, which is indicative of a fluent conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--27145",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I feel terrible. I don't even remember what happened last night.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Do you want to talk about it? Maybe it will help you piece together\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: I don't know. It's just so embarrassing. I can't believe I did that.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: Come on, Richie. You can tell me anything. What's the worst that could happen?\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker A: Okay, but you have to promise not to laugh at me.\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker B: I promise. What happened?\n[00:22 - 00:32] Speaker A: I don't really know. I remember we were at the party and I was drinking and then...I don't know. The next thing I remember is waking up this morning with a horrible hangover.\n[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker B: Do you remember anything else? Anything at all?\n[00:35 - 00:41] Speaker A: No, that's it. It's like everything after a certain point is just a blur, and\n[00:40 - 00:48] Speaker B: A blank? That sounds rough. But do you remember if anything unusual happened before that blank spot? Like, did someone say or do something that might have triggered it?\n[00:49 - 00:58] Speaker A: Now that you mention it, I do recall someone pulling me aside, but I can't remember who it was or what they said. Everything just went fuzzy after that.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides supportive and probing responses that are logically consistent with Speaker A's statements. Speaker A's responses, despite their confusion, directly address Speaker B's questions and attempts to recall information, maintaining topic coherence. For example, Speaker B's follow-up questions like \"Do you remember anything else? Anything at all?\" and the subsequent \"But do you remember if anything unusual happened before that blank spot?\" are highly relevant in trying to help Speaker A piece together missing memories. Speaker A's eventual recall of \"someone pulling me aside\" shows the logical progression and relevance of the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns. Most turns are taken immediately or after a very brief 1-second pause, which is natural in conversation. There is one brief overlap identified: `[00:40 - 00:48] Speaker B:` starts while `[00:35 - 00:41] Speaker A:` is still speaking. This results in a 1-second overlap (Speaker B starts at 00:40, Speaker A ends at 00:41). According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This small overlap contributes to the natural flow rather than hindering it, indicating engaged listening and turn-taking. No extended overlaps or long pauses are detected, making the conversation feel fluid and realistic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--24039",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Not much, just hanging out. What about you?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: Same here. Just chilling and enjoying the day.\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Yeah, it's really nice out today. Perfect weather for just taking a\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A: Speaking of weather, did you hear about the storm that's supposed to hit next week? I was thinking maybe we should plan something indoors just in case.\n[00:19 - 00:28] Speaker B: Oh, I hadn't heard about that. Good idea, we should definitely keep an eye on the forecast. But yeah, today is perfect for just taking it easy and not having to worry about anything.\n[00:28 - 00:35] Speaker A: Absolutely. I love days like this where you can just relax and not have to think about anything stressful.\n[00:35 - 00:42] Speaker B: Yeah, me too. I feel like we don't get enough of those lately. It seems like there's always something going on that needs our attention.\n[00:43 - 00:48] Speaker A: I know what you mean. I feel like I'm always either working or trying to\n[00:46 - 00:53] Speaker B: Or dealing with something unexpected, right? It's like there's never a moment to just breathe.\n[00:53 - 01:00] Speaker A: Exactly. It's nice to have a day where you can just relax and not have to worry about anything for a change.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance.\n**Logical consistency:** Each turn logically follows the previous one. Speakers respond directly to what was said, either by agreeing, elaborating, or transitioning smoothly to a related point. For example, Speaker B's \"But yeah, today is perfect...\" directly follows their acknowledgment of the storm, bringing the focus back to the present moment. Speaker B's completion of Speaker A's thought (\"Or dealing with something unexpected, right?\") shows excellent logical understanding and continuation.\n**Topic coherence:** The conversation maintains excellent topic coherence. It starts with general greetings, smoothly transitions to the pleasant weather, then briefly touches on future weather (a storm), but quickly returns to the current enjoyment of a relaxed day. The theme of \"relaxing and not having to worry\" is consistently maintained and developed throughout the latter half of the dialogue, with both speakers contributing to the shared sentiment of wanting more such days. The transitions, like \"Speaking of weather,\" are natural and keep the conversation flowing without abrupt shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n**Extended overlaps:** There are brief overlaps detected:\n*   [00:10 - 00:11]: Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing a thought. This is a 1-second overlap.\n*   [00:46 - 00:48]: Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing a thought. This is a 2-second overlap.\nThese overlaps are short and do not appear to be disruptive or harmful. Instead, they indicate active listening, engagement, and a natural, collaborative conversational rhythm. They are brief, not extended.\n**Long pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are quick and natural, with only very brief, acceptable pauses (e.g., 1 second between [00:18] and [00:19]). The conversation flows smoothly without any awkward silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--112711",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: This salad is really good. I'm so glad we decided to come here for dinner.\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker B: I know, me too. This steak is delicious. I'm glad we could get a table at such short notice, especially\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker A: Oh, speaking of that, I was actually surprised we got in so quickly. I heard they're usually booked solid for weeks.\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker B: Yeah, it's a great restaurant. I've been wanting to try it for a while now.\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker A: I'm glad we finally made it here then. It was definitely worth the wait.\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker B: I know. The food is amazing. I'm so full, though.\n[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker A: Me too. I think we should save room for dessert, but\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker B: Wait, did you see the dessert menu? It looks incredible. I don't know how we'll choose!\n[00:38 - 00:41] Speaker A: Yeah, that sounds like a good idea.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and topic coherence.\n- **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B responds directly to Speaker A's comment about the salad, adding their own experience. Speaker A then picks up on Speaker B's mention of getting a table quickly. The conversation smoothly transitions from the restaurant's quality to being full, and then to dessert.\n- **Topic Coherence:** The conversation maintains a clear focus on the dining experience at the restaurant. New sub-topics (getting a table, dessert) are introduced naturally and are directly related to the overarching theme. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant statements.\n- **Natural Progression:** The speakers build on each other's statements, elaborate on points, and introduce new, related ideas in a very natural conversational flow. For example, Speaker B's \"I'm so full, though\" naturally leads to Speaker A's \"save room for dessert.\"\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is very good, demonstrating natural conversational dynamics.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two instances of brief overlaps, both lasting 1 second:\n    - `[00:09 - 00:10] Speaker A overlapping Speaker B`: Speaker A begins their turn right as Speaker B is finishing their sentence (\"...especially\"). This is a common and natural occurrence in enthusiastic conversation, often indicating active listening and eager participation rather than an interruption. It does not hinder comprehension or flow.\n    - `[00:33 - 00:34] Speaker B overlapping Speaker A`: Speaker B interjects (\"Wait, did you see the dessert menu?\") as Speaker A is in the middle of a sentence (\"...but\"). This is an eager and relevant interjection, typical when a speaker is excited about a topic the other speaker is introducing. It's a brief, natural interruption that adds to the conversational energy rather than detracting from it.\nNeither of these overlaps is extended or harmful; they are brief and reflect active, engaged communication.\n- **Pauses:** There are no prolonged pauses. The gaps between turns are typically 1 second (e.g., between [00:17] and [00:18], [00:21] and [00:22], etc.). These are very short and acceptable, representing natural turn-taking without any awkward silence or hesitation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--319",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Let's go to Burger Queen for lunch. They have good cheeseburgers.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: OK. I am hungry, too. I like their milkshake. They're very creamy and I usually\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: Speaking of their milkshakes, did you know they have a new flavor? I think it's caramel. Have you tried it?\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: Oh, I haven't tried that one yet! But I did try their vanilla milkshake last time, and it was really delicious.\n[00:21 - 00:32] Speaker A: Yup, they have good French fries as well. Not very thick, but crispy enough. You should try them with some mayonnaise sauce. That is the Belgium style. You will love how the\n[00:31 - 00:38] Speaker B: Wait, you mentioned the caramel milkshake earlier—do you know if it's available today? I might want to try that instead of the vanilla one.\n[00:39 - 00:50] Speaker A: Oh, I'm not sure if it's available today, but you can ask when we order. Anyway, back to the fries—trust me, you should definitely try them with the mayo sauce. It's a game-changer!\n[00:50 - 00:56] Speaker B: OK, I think I know what to order for my lunch now. But, eating too much fried food really makes me fat.\n[00:56 - 01:01] Speaker A: Come on. You just have it once in a while, not every day. It will not harm you.\n[01:02 - 01:06] Speaker B: That's true. You can hear my tummy grumbling. I am really hungry!\n[01:06 - 01:09] Speaker A: Be patient. Good food never comes fast.\n[01:09 - 01:10] Speaker B: Ok!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the preceding one. Speaker B's \"OK. I am hungry, too\" is a direct and logical response to Speaker A's lunch suggestion. Speaker A's follow-up question about the new milkshake flavor is a logical elaboration on Speaker B's mention of milkshakes. Speaker B's query about the caramel milkshake's availability, though it brings back an earlier topic, is logically consistent as it's a clarification based on Speaker A's earlier mention. Speaker A's subsequent response answers the question and then smoothly attempts to bring the conversation back to the fries. Speaker B's concern about fried food and Speaker A's reassurance are also perfectly logical exchanges.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The conversation maintains good topic coherence. While there are natural topic shifts (from general lunch to cheeseburgers, then milkshakes, then fries, then back to milkshakes for a query, then back to fries, and finally general dietary concerns), these shifts are either initiated naturally (e.g., \"Speaking of their milkshakes\") or explicitly managed (e.g., \"Wait, you mentioned...\", \"Anyway, back to the fries\"). There are no abrupt, uncontextualized changes or misunderstandings of the current topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent interactional fluency.\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps detected:\n    *   [00:07 - 00:08]: Speaker A starts at 00:07 while Speaker B is still speaking (ending at 00:08). This is a 1-second overlap.\n    *   [00:31 - 00:32]: Speaker B starts at 00:31 while Speaker A is still speaking (ending at 00:32). This is a 1-second overlap.\n    Both overlaps are very brief (1 second) and appear to be natural, collaborative turn-taking instances where one speaker anticipates or eagerly interjects, rather than prolonged or disruptive simultaneous speaking. They do not hinder comprehension or the flow of conversation, aligning with the \"brief overlaps...are acceptable\" guideline.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The maximum pauses observed are 1 second (e.g., 00:03-00:04, 00:20-00:21), which are considered small and natural in conversation. The dialogue flows smoothly without any noticeable delays or awkward silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--539",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So have you been knitting yet?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not yet. I haven't found the time.\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker A: I don't knit either. It's really fun, but I just don't have time for it. I always go to bed before I've finished a project\n[00:11 - 00:11] Speaker B: What did you make?\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A: I made these really pretty scarves! I'll post some pictures on Instagram if you want.\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker B: Sure, I'll follow you! By the way, you mentioned you always go to bed before you've finished something earlier. What was it you were talking about?\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker A: Oh, I meant I always go to bed before I've finished knitting a project.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Logical Consistency & Topic Coherence:**\nThe dialogue maintains strong topic coherence, centering around the theme of knitting.\n- Speaker A's initial statement \"I don't knit either\" after Speaker B says they haven't found time to knit, followed by Speaker A mentioning \"finished a project\" creates a slight ambiguity. However, this is natural in conversation and is very well handled.\n- Speaker B's follow-up question \"What did you make?\" directly addresses Speaker A's mention of a \"project,\" showing active listening and maintaining logical flow.\n- Crucially, Speaker B later picks up on the earlier vague phrasing (\"you always go to bed before you've finished something earlier. What was it you were talking about?\"), which demonstrates excellent active listening and a desire for logical clarity.\n- Speaker A's clarification (\"Oh, I meant I always go to bed before I've finished knitting a project\") resolves the initial ambiguity, showing the dialogue participants are effectively communicating and aligning their understanding.\nOverall, the responses are consistently relevant, and any minor initial ambiguities are naturally and effectively resolved within the conversation, contributing to a high degree of logical consistency and coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Extended Overlaps:** There are no extended overlaps detected. The turns are clean and distinct.\n**Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between speakers are quick and natural (typically 0-1 second pauses), indicative of a smooth and engaging conversation flow. Small pauses are acceptable, and the ones present here are brief and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--429",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey Mom, I was just wondering if you could maybe help me out with something.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: What is it, Santina?\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Well, I was wondering if you could help me keep the house clean. You know, like help me vacuum and dust the\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker B: Oh, speaking of vacuuming, did you notice the vacuum cleaner has been making a weird noise lately? I was thinking we might need to get it checked.\n[00:19 - 00:31] Speaker A: I didn't notice that, but yeah, we should definitely get it checked. Anyway, I was saying, I just don't want the house to be messy. I know that if the litter is not scooped, it will start to smell bad.\n[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker B: Well, that's true. But keeping the house clean is a lot of work. Are you sure you're ready to\n[00:35 - 00:39] Speaker A: Up for it? Yeah, I'm sure. I really don't mind doing it.\n[00:39 - 00:42] Speaker B: Okay, well let me know if you need any help.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally demonstrates good response relevance. Speaker A initiates a request for help with cleaning, and Speaker B consistently responds to the general topic of keeping the house clean, even if sometimes indirectly.\n\nA minor point of concern is Speaker B's turn at [00:11 - 00:19]. When Speaker A is asking for help with vacuuming and dusting, Speaker B diverts the topic to the vacuum cleaner's mechanical issue. While related to \"vacuuming,\" it is a tangential shift that does not directly address Speaker A's request for help with the *task* of cleaning. Speaker A has to re-establish the original request (\"Anyway, I was saying...\"). This indicates a slight deviation from topic coherence, though Speaker A manages to smoothly bring the conversation back.\n\nThe subsequent turns are relevant: Speaker B acknowledges the work involved, and Speaker A reassures them, leading to Speaker B's final offer of help. Overall, the conversation stays on the main theme of house cleaning, but with one minor digression that required re-orientation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural and responsive flow.\n\nThere are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  At [00:11 - 00:19], Speaker B begins speaking one second before Speaker A finishes their sentence (\"dust the\"). This is a very common and natural conversational overlap, often indicating that Speaker B anticipated or was quick to react to a keyword (\"vacuuming\"). It does not disrupt the flow negatively.\n2.  At [00:35 - 00:39], Speaker A begins speaking one second before Speaker B finishes their sentence (\"Are you sure you're ready to\"). Speaker A completes Speaker B's thought (\"Up for it?\"), which is a sign of active listening and high interactional fluency. This type of overlap enhances the naturalness of the conversation rather than being harmful.\n\nBoth overlaps are brief and functional, contributing to the dialogue's dynamic and realistic feel.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--80856",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: So, you were walking to your friend's house when you saw a big black dog in your way. What did you think at\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: What kind of dog was it? Do you know the breed?\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: I'm not sure about the breed, but I got scared and ran the other way.\n[00:12 - 00:13] Speaker B: Why were you scared?\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker A: I don't know. It was just a big black dog and it looked like it\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker B: Did it bark at you or do anything threatening?\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker A: No, it didn't bark, but it looked mean, like it might hurt me.\n[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker B: Do you think all big black dogs are mean?\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker A: No, I don't think all of them are mean. But that one looked like it might hurt me.\n[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker B: So, you were smart to run away from it then.\n[00:35 - 00:36] Speaker A: Yeah, I guess so.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one, maintaining a clear topic (the dog encounter).\n- Speaker B's initial question \"What kind of dog was it? Do you know the breed?\" is a direct and logical follow-up to Speaker A introducing a \"big black dog.\"\n- Speaker A's response explains their reaction and addresses the breed question.\n- Speaker B's subsequent questions (\"Why were you scared?\", \"Did it bark at you or do anything threatening?\", \"Do you think all big black dogs are mean?\") are all highly relevant, probing deeper into Speaker A's experience and perceptions.\n- Speaker A consistently provides coherent answers to these questions, explaining their fear and qualifying their generalization about dogs.\n- Speaker B's concluding remark \"So, you were smart to run away from it then\" is a relevant summarization/validation of A's experience, and A's final agreement is also relevant.\nThere are no instances of topic shifts or irrelevant contributions. The conversation flows naturally and coherently.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- **Pauses:** All pauses between turns are approximately 1 second ([00:13-00:14], [00:19-00:20], [00:26-00:27], [00:31-00:32], [00:34-00:35]). These are considered \"small pauses\" and are natural in conversation, allowing for processing and turn-taking without feeling prolonged.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two instances of 1-second overlaps:\n    - [00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A. Speaker A's sentence ends incompletely (\"What did you think at\"), and Speaker B jumps in with a clarifying question. This type of brief overlap is often natural when a speaker hesitates or leaves a thought open, and the listener interjects to clarify or prompt.\n    - [00:17 - 00:19] Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A again. Speaker A's sentence again trails off (\"it looked like it\"), and Speaker B provides a direct question to help them articulate the reason for their fear.\nThese brief overlaps (1 second each) are not prolonged or disruptive. They appear to be instances of collaborative turn-taking, where Speaker B is attempting to help Speaker A complete their thoughts or guide the conversation when Speaker A hesitates. They do not hinder communication and feel natural in the context.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--24443",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I've loved climbing trees since I was a little girl. It's always been one of my favorite things to challenge myself\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker B: Why do you think you were so drawn to it even as a child? Was it the thrill or something else?\n[00:10 - 00:30] Speaker A: It was definitely the thrill, but also the sense of freedom. I just love the feeling of being up high and looking down at the world. It's like being in a different world up there. And it's something that I'm really good at. I know how to climb safely and efficiently, and I have a lot of experience with different types of trees, which\n[00:29 - 00:39] Speaker B: Sorry, I just realized—what kind of training do you need to become a professional tree climber? Is it mostly on-the-job experience or are there formal certifications?\n[00:39 - 00:53] Speaker A: It's a mix of both. On-the-job experience is crucial, but there are also certifications for safety and tree care that you need. I was going to mention different types of trees earlier, but yes, the training is extensive and ongoing.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n1.  **Speaker B (00:05-00:10):** Asks a direct follow-up question to Speaker A's initial statement, inquiring about the specific appeal of tree climbing. This demonstrates good listening and logical progression.\n2.  **Speaker A (00:10-00:30):** Directly answers Speaker B's question, elaborating on the \"thrill\" and \"sense of freedom.\" The response maintains topic coherence by staying focused on her personal experience with tree climbing. She starts to expand on her expertise with different types of trees, which is a natural continuation of her previous point about being \"good at it\" and having \"experience.\"\n3.  **Speaker B (00:29-00:39):** Although an interruption, Speaker B's question about professional training for tree climbing is still logically connected to the broader topic of tree climbing, especially given Speaker A's recent mention of \"knowing how to climb safely and efficiently\" and being \"good at it.\" It's a shift from personal experience to professional aspects but not an irrelevant jump. The \"Sorry, I just realized—\" also indicates an awareness of the slight shift or interruption.\n4.  **Speaker A (00:39-00:53):** Directly addresses Speaker B's new question about training and certifications. Speaker A also skillfully links back to her previous unfinished thought (\"I was going to mention different types of trees earlier\"), demonstrating an awareness of the conversational thread despite the interruption. This shows strong topic coherence and adaptability.\n\nOverall, the dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's questions are relevant, and Speaker A's responses are direct and elaborate appropriately, even managing a slight topic pivot smoothly.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n1.  **Overlap 1 (00:05 - 00:10):** Speaker B begins speaking at 00:05 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:06. This is a 1-second overlap. This is a very brief overlap and is common in natural conversation, not indicating a disruption in fluency.\n2.  **Overlap 2 (00:29 - 00:39):** Speaker B begins speaking at 00:29 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:30. This is another 1-second overlap. Speaker B's immediate \"Sorry, I just realized—\" indicates awareness of the overlap and an attempt to smoothly interject. This brief, acknowledged overlap is acceptable and does not harm interactional fluency.\n3.  **Pauses:** There are no indications of long pauses between speaker turns. The turns follow each other with either no pause or a very brief, acceptable overlap.\n\nThe conversation flows naturally with brief, acceptable overlaps. There are no prolonged pauses or significant overlapping turns that would disrupt the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--9751",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm so excited to be able to cook our Thanksgiving feast together this year!\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Me too! I can't believe how much we have to be thankful for. It's been such a great year.\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: Yeah, it really has. I'm especially thankful for you, Baker. You've been my rock this year.\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker B: Aww, Johann, I feel the same way about you. I'm so grateful for your love and support throughout\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker A: Speaking of love, I was wondering if we should try that new recipe for the stuffing this year? I heard it's amazing.\n[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker B: That sounds great! But I was going to say I'm also thankful for our health, our home, and our wonderful friends and family.\n[00:34 - 00:40] Speaker A: Yes, definitely. We are truly blessed. What are you most thankful for this year, Baker?\n[00:40 - 00:47] Speaker B: I think I'm most thankful for the love and happiness we share. It's the best feeling in the world, and I cherish it more than anything else.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:09] Initial Exchange:** Speaker A introduces the Thanksgiving theme and excitement. Speaker B reciprocates the excitement and naturally broadens the topic to \"thankfulness,\" which is highly relevant to Thanksgiving.\n2.  **[00:09 - 00:21] Personal Gratitude:** Speaker A deepens the gratitude by thanking Speaker B personally. Speaker B responds by reciprocating the sentiment directly, maintaining logical consistency and emotional coherence.\n3.  **[00:20 - 00:27] Topic Shift and Acknowledgment:** Speaker A uses \"Speaking of love\" as a somewhat loose but acceptable transitional phrase to pivot back to the practical aspect of Thanksgiving cooking (stuffing recipe). While a slight digression, it's connected to the initial theme. Speaker B's response at [00:28 - 00:33] is excellent. They acknowledge Speaker A's suggestion (\"That sounds great!\") demonstrating relevance to the new topic, but immediately return to their prior unfinished thought about what *they* are thankful for (\"But I was going to say...\"). This shows a sophisticated level of conversational negotiation, valuing both the new input and their own continuing thought.\n4.  **[00:34 - 00:47] Re-alignment and Coherence:** Speaker A, in turn, gracefully re-aligns with Speaker B's preference, affirming the thankfulness topic (\"Yes, definitely. We are truly blessed\") and then prompts Speaker B to elaborate (\"What are you most thankful for...?\"). This demonstrates excellent active listening and ensures the conversation returns to a mutually engaging theme. Speaker B's final response directly answers the question, bringing the conversation to a natural and warm close on the theme of shared love and happiness, which ties back to their mutual appreciation.\n\nOverall, the logical consistency is high, with minor, natural topic shifts being handled effectively and collaboratively by both speakers.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, characterized by natural pacing, appropriate pauses, and brief, acceptable overlaps.\n\n1.  **No Long Pauses:** There are no instances of long, unnatural pauses between turns. The transitions between speakers are smooth, typically with 1-second gaps (e.g., [00:27 - 00:28], [00:33 - 00:34]), which are typical and natural in conversation.\n2.  **Brief Overlaps Only:** One brief overlap is detected:\n    *   [00:20 - 00:21]: Speaker A begins speaking at 0:20 while Speaker B finishes their sentence at 0:21. This is a 1-second overlap. The instructions state that \"brief overlaps... are acceptable.\" This particular overlap is very common in natural conversation, often indicating enthusiastic engagement or a speaker anticipating the end of the other's turn to jump in. It does not disrupt the flow or indicate a lack of turn-taking ability.\n3.  **No Extended Overlaps:** There are no prolonged instances where speakers talk over each other for an extended period, which would be detrimental to fluency. The brief overlap observed is well within the acceptable range.\n\nThe conversation flows very naturally, simulating real-life interaction without any awkward hesitations or disruptive interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--53012",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hey boss, I'm feeling really exhausted today. My body is aching and my head is pounding. I\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker B: Wait, before you continue, have you considered if it might be something more serious? Maybe you should see a doctor just to be sure.\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: Oh no, that doesn't sound good. Maybe you're right, I should go home and rest for a bit and if\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker B: Yeah, definitely do that. I don't want to risk you getting sick or injured out here. It's better to be safe.\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker A: Absolutely. I think that's a good idea. I'll head out and take the rest of the day off so I\n[00:30 - 00:34] Speaker B: Good call. We can manage without you for today. Get some rest and feel better soon.\n[00:35 - 00:37] Speaker A: Thanks boss. I appreciate it and I'll\n[00:36 - 00:39] Speaker B: No problem. Take care of yourself.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker A's initial complaint about feeling unwell prompts Speaker B to express concern and suggest a doctor, which is a logical and coherent response. Speaker A then acknowledges B's suggestion and acts upon it by deciding to go home. Speaker B consistently provides supportive and relevant responses, such as reassuring Speaker A about managing without them and wishing them well. The topic remains focused on Speaker A's health and the decision to take time off. There are no instances of topic drift or illogical jumps. Each turn builds naturally on the previous one, maintaining clear logical consistency throughout the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good, although marked by several brief overlaps. Speaker B consistently initiates their turns just as Speaker A is finishing (or about to finish) their sentence (e.g., [00:05 - 00:12] B overlaps A's \"I\", [00:18 - 00:24] B overlaps A's \"and if\", [00:30 - 00:34] B overlaps A's \"so I\", [00:36 - 00:39] B overlaps A's \"and I'll\"). These overlaps are brief, typically lasting around 1 second, and do not lead to a breakdown in communication or confusion. While they cut off Speaker A's sentences, they contribute to a sense of a quick, responsive, and dynamic exchange rather than being \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlaps. There are no noticeable long pauses between turns. Given that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" these do not significantly detract from the overall fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--15391",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I need to get out of here. I feel like I'm suffocating.\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: What do you mean? You're always complaining about something. Is it me? Do you want to break up\n[00:07 - 00:19] Speaker A: Wait, it's not about you specifically. It's just that I feel like I can't breathe when I'm around you. You're always demanding and nagging me about something. It's like you never give me a break.\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker B: Well, maybe if you would actually do what I ask instead of constantly arguing with me, things would be different. But no, you have to do things your way and ignore what\n[00:27 - 00:44] Speaker A: And that's because I feel like we're stuck in this endless cycle. Maybe if things were different between us, I wouldn't have to argue all the time. But the fact is, we're always fighting and nothing ever gets resolved because we can't even agree on anything. So yes, maybe it is better if I leave.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A's initial expression of feeling \"suffocating\" directly leads to Speaker B's interpretation and concern about the relationship (\"Is it me? Do you want to break up?\"). Speaker A then clarifies, albeit still blaming Speaker B for demanding behavior. Speaker B retaliates by blaming Speaker A for not complying. Finally, Speaker A explains the \"endless cycle\" of fighting, bringing the conversation to a head and reiterating the initial desire to leave. Each turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one, escalating the argument naturally and maintaining a consistent focus on the strained relationship dynamics. There are no irrelevant tangents or illogical jumps.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a dynamic and continuous conversation flow. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  [00:07 - 00:19] Speaker A starts at 0:07 while Speaker B's turn ends at 0:08, resulting in a 1-second overlap.\n2.  [00:27 - 00:44] Speaker A starts at 0:27 while Speaker B's turn ends at 0:28, also a 1-second overlap.\nGiven the context of a heated argument, these brief 1-second overlaps are natural and indicate an eagerness to interject or respond, rather than being disruptive or prolonged. They do not hinder comprehension or the natural flow of the dialogue. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these fall into that category, not being \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns\" that are harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--128710",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey, Denise. I took your keys and went outside for a bit. Sorry if I worried you\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Wait, what? Why would you do that? It's freezing out there!\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A: I know, but I wanted to get some fresh air. And your place is starting to feel a little too cramped for me to\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker B: Cramped? Are you saying my place is too small for you now?\n[00:17 - 00:28] Speaker A: No, it's not that. I just needed some space for a moment. I'm sorry, Denise. I know I should have asked first, but I was just feeling really claustrophobic and needed to get out.\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker B: Fine. Just please don't do it again without asking me first.\n[00:32 - 00:33] Speaker A: I won't. I promise.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one.\n*   Speaker B's immediate shock and questions (\"Wait, what? Why would you do that?\") are a perfectly logical and relevant reaction to Speaker A's surprising confession.\n*   Speaker A's explanation (\"I wanted to get some fresh air. And your place is starting to feel a little too cramped...\") directly answers B's \"why\" question.\n*   Speaker B's follow-up question (\"Cramped? Are you saying my place is too small for you now?\") is a relevant clarification and reaction to A's new, potentially offensive, comment.\n*   Speaker A's subsequent apology and more detailed explanation (\"No, it's not that... I was just feeling really claustrophobic...\") effectively addresses B's implied accusation and clarifies the initial action.\n*   Speaker B's \"Fine. Just please don't do it again without asking me first\" provides a relevant condition for resolution.\n*   Speaker A's final \"I won't. I promise\" directly responds to B's condition, completing the interaction with a clear agreement.\nThe topic remains coherent throughout, evolving naturally from the initial transgression to explanation, a minor misunderstanding, and ultimate resolution.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural. There are a couple of brief overlaps, specifically:\n*   At [00:04 - 00:05], Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing. This 1-second overlap is very common in natural conversation, especially when one speaker is reacting with surprise or interruption, as B does here.\n*   At [00:14 - 00:15], Speaker B again starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing. This 1-second overlap is also natural, as B interjects to react to A's \"cramped\" comment.\nThese are not \"extended overlaps\" but rather brief, acceptable instances that contribute to the natural feel of the dialogue, indicating engagement and immediate reaction rather than a breakdown in communication. There are no noticeable long pauses between turns, with turns often starting immediately after the previous one ends, contributing to a fluid conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--543",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Hey, I'm going to start a garden! I'm thinking of growing an herb garden, so I need to buy some herbs. What should I get?\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B: Where are you going to plant your garden? I've always wanted to get some rediscovered plants from my grandmother's old\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but about those rediscovered plants, do you think they would thrive in a small urban garden?\n[00:19 - 00:28] Speaker B: Some of them might, but it really depends on the specific conditions of your garden. Speaking of which, you said you wanted to grow rosemary, thyme, and parsley. These\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker A: Oh, and I was also considering adding basil to the mix. Do you think that would be a good idea?\n[00:33 - 00:41] Speaker B: Definitely, basil is a great choice! It complements the other herbs well. Now, back to my earlier point, do you have a specific area in your garden for these herbs?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance shows some inconsistencies and minor deviations.\n1.  **[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B:** Speaker B's initial response \"Where are you going to plant your garden?\" is relevant. However, the subsequent mention of \"rediscovered plants from my grandmother's old\" is a tangent, diverting from Speaker A's initial request for herb recommendations.\n2.  **[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A:** Speaker A follows Speaker B's tangent about \"rediscovered plants,\" which, while engaging with B's last point, moves further from the original topic of herb recommendations.\n3.  **[00:19 - 00:28] Speaker B:** Speaker B states, \"you said you wanted to grow rosemary, thyme, and parsley.\" This introduces a logical inconsistency as Speaker A only mentioned \"some herbs\" initially, not these specific ones in the provided transcript. This makes Speaker B appear to be recalling external information or making an assumption that isn't supported by the dialogue.\nOverall, while both speakers attempt to steer the conversation back to herbs (Speaker B at the end of their second turn and third turn), the initial tangent and the logical inconsistency regarding the named herbs detract from the overall topic coherence and logical flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is problematic due to multiple instances of overlapping speech and abrupt turn endings.\n1.  **[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A:** There is a clear overlap with Speaker B's preceding turn ([00:12 - 00:13]). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this by saying, \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating an interruption rather than a natural, brief overlap.\n2.  **[00:19 - 00:28] Speaker B:** This turn ends abruptly with \"These,\" suggesting Speaker B was cut off or trailed off unnaturally.\n3.  **[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker A:** There is another overlap ([00:27 - 00:28]) where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still in mid-sentence.\nThese multiple instances of speakers talking over each other and abrupt turn endings indicate issues with natural turn-taking, preventing the conversation from flowing smoothly. While the overlaps are brief in duration, their frequency and impact on the conversation (acknowledged interruption, cut-off turns) are significant enough to be considered harmful to fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--30962",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm so glad I decided to cut out processed foods. I feel so much better without all the\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: I can tell! You look great. What made you decide to finally do it?\n[00:09 - 00:22] Speaker A: Well, I had been thinking about it for a while. And then one day, I just woke up and said, \"Today is the day.\" So, I went through my pantry and got rid of all of the processed food. It was hard at first, but after a\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B: Wait, did you notice any immediate changes after you stopped? Like, how long did it take for you to start feeling better?\n[00:29 - 00:40] Speaker A: Oh, it took about a week or so to really feel the difference. But now, I feel so much better. You know, I was going to say it was tough at first, but now it's just my new normal.\n[00:40 - 00:44] Speaker B: You really do look great! And you seem so much more energetic too.\n[00:44 - 00:53] Speaker A: Yes! I feel like I have more energy now that I'm not eating processed foods. And my skin looks better too. Overall, I just feel healthier without them.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and maintain excellent logical consistency and topic coherence throughout. Speaker A introduces the topic of cutting out processed foods and feeling better. Speaker B's initial response affirms A's statement and asks a direct, relevant follow-up question (\"What made you decide to finally do it?\"). Speaker A's subsequent explanation logically follows. Speaker B's interjection \"Wait, did you notice any immediate changes...\" is a direct and pertinent question related to A's previous statement about feeling better, driving the conversation forward on the topic of effects. Speaker A then directly answers this question, providing specific details about when they felt the difference. Speaker B's final comments (\"You really do look great! And you seem so much more energetic too.\") are observations directly aligned with A's claims of feeling better and the benefits of their dietary change. Speaker A's concluding remarks reinforce these positive changes. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or inconsistent information.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural flow of conversation. There is one instance of an overlap: `[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B:` begins speaking while `[00:09 - 00:22] Speaker A:` is still speaking. This overlap lasts for approximately 1 second (from 00:21 to 00:22). According to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This 1-second overlap is brief and appears to be a natural, eager interjection by Speaker B, indicating active listening and engagement rather than being a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" interruption. It does not hinder the communication or understanding.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--365",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: How may I help you?\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: I would like to return this book.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker A: Is that all you need?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: I also want to check out this video.\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker A: Is that all you would like to check out\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B: Oh, before I forget, is this video available for a full week, or is it a shorter loan period?\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker A: It's available for a full week. But I was asking if that's all you would like to check out?\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B: Yes, that's all I need.\n[00:21 - 00:23] Speaker A: Do you have your library card?\n[00:23 - 00:24] Speaker B: Here it is.\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker A: Make sure to take proper care of this video.\n[00:27 - 00:28] Speaker B: That won't be a problem.\n[00:29 - 00:32] Speaker A: If you damage the video, you will be responsible for\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker B: Oh, I remember you mentioned something about fines earlier. How much would the fine be if something did happen to the video?\n[00:38 - 00:44] Speaker A: The fine would depend on the extent of the damage, but I was going to say you'd be fined for any damage.\n[00:44 - 00:46] Speaker B: Got it, I'll be careful with it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or logically follows the preceding turn, maintaining strong topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial request to return a book and check out a video is directly acknowledged and processed by Speaker A.\n- Speaker A's repeated question \"Is that all you would like to check out?\" shows a clear attempt to confirm the transaction's scope, and Speaker B eventually provides a direct answer.\n- Speaker B's questions regarding the video's loan period and potential fines, while sometimes interjecting, are highly relevant to the immediate context of checking out the video and the associated responsibilities. These are proactive questions that seek clarification on important aspects of the transaction.\n- Speaker A consistently answers Speaker B's questions directly and returns to the task flow, demonstrating good conversational management and logical progression.\n- There are no irrelevant responses or nonsensical turns; the conversation flows purposefully towards completing the library transaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is generally good, with natural pauses and turn-taking, but there are two specific instances of \"overlapping turns\" which the criteria states are harmful:\n- At `[00:08 - 00:13]`, Speaker B begins speaking (\"Oh, before I forget...\") while Speaker A is still completing their question `[00:07 - 00:09]`. This results in a 1-second overlap.\n- At `[00:31 - 00:37]`, Speaker B interjects (\"Oh, I remember you mentioned...\") while Speaker A is mid-sentence `[00:29 - 00:32]`. This also results in a 1-second overlap.\n\nAccording to the evaluation criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" These instances are \"overlapping turns\" (interruptions) rather than brief, natural overlaps. While the duration of the overlap is very brief (1 second), the *type* of overlap is an interruption. However, these interruptions do not lead to confusion, awkwardness, or a breakdown in communication. The conversation proceeds smoothly despite them. The pauses between turns are generally natural and brief (0-1 seconds). No long pauses were detected.\nGiven that the overlaps are brief and do not significantly impede the flow or comprehension of the dialogue, they are minor imperfections rather than \"significant issues.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--38585",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm not happy with my term paper. I think it could be more detailed\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Why do you think that? Is it the content, or maybe the structure?\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: I don't think it's well-organized and I want to add more examples and\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker B: Before you add more information, have you considered reorganizing the sections first? Sometimes a clearer structure can make a big difference.\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker A: That's a good point. I'm going to make an outline first and then add more detail to each section.\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: That sounds like a solid plan. Let me know if you need any help.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance.\n*   Speaker A expresses dissatisfaction with their term paper, specifically regarding detail.\n*   Speaker B's first response, \"Why do you think that? Is it the content, or maybe the structure?\", is a highly relevant clarifying question that helps narrow down the problem, showing active listening and a desire to understand the root cause.\n*   Speaker A clarifies the issue is organization and wanting to add more examples.\n*   Speaker B's second response, \"Before you add more information, have you considered reorganizing the sections first? Sometimes a clearer structure can make a big difference,\" directly addresses A's points about organization and adding detail. It offers a logical and practical suggestion that prioritizes structure, which is a common and effective approach to improving written work. This demonstrates logical consistency in advice.\n*   Speaker A acknowledges this as a \"good point\" and proposes a plan (\"make an outline first and then add more detail\") that directly incorporates B's advice, showing the advice was relevant and actionable.\n*   Speaker B's final response, \"That sounds like a solid plan. Let me know if you need any help,\" validates A's adopted plan and offers continued support, which is a relevant and appropriate closing.\nThe conversation maintains clear topic coherence throughout, focusing solely on improving the term paper, and Speaker B's contributions are consistently helpful and logical.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates strong interactional fluency.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps:\n    *   [00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B starts at 00:03 while Speaker A finishes at 00:04, resulting in a 1-second overlap.\n    *   [00:09 - 00:17] Speaker B starts at 00:09 while Speaker A finishes at 00:10, resulting in a 1-second overlap.\n    Both of these are short, natural overlaps that indicate active listening and engagement rather than interrupting. They are not extended overlaps that would hinder comprehension or flow, but rather characteristic of dynamic, natural conversation.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are smooth and immediate (e.g., A ends at 00:04, B starts at 00:03; A ends at 00:10, B starts at 00:09; B ends at 00:17, A starts at 00:18; A ends at 00:23, B starts at 00:24). This contributes to a natural and fluid conversational rhythm.\nOverall, the pacing and timing are excellent, indicating a highly fluent interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--512",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I've been trying to get into shape by doing calisthenics. Have you ever tried doing calisthenics?\n[00:06 - 00:06] Speaker B: What's that?\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker A: Calisthenics is exercising by using your body instead of using weights. It's more efficient and much better for your overall fitness\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but how does it compare in terms of muscle building compared to traditional weightlifting?\n[00:20 - 00:33] Speaker A: It's quite effective for muscle building, especially for functional strength. However, I haven't mentioned that it's also great for flexibility and mobility. Anyway, I think you'd have a lot of fun doing it with me.\n[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker B: I'll have to look into it, but I definitely would not want to work out at home.\n[00:37 - 00:38] Speaker A: Why not?\n[00:39 - 00:45] Speaker B: Sorry, but I like to work out at the gym because it's convenient and there are a lot of great machines that I like to use.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or follows up on the previous statement, maintaining topic coherence throughout the conversation about calisthenics and workout preferences.\n\n*   Speaker B's initial \"What's that?\" is a direct and logical response to Speaker A introducing an unfamiliar term.\n*   Speaker B's follow-up question about muscle building is highly relevant after Speaker A's explanation of calisthenics' benefits.\n*   Speaker A provides a relevant answer and naturally transitions to an invitation for Speaker B to join.\n*   Speaker B's response about not wanting to work out at home is a direct, albeit conditional, reaction to Speaker A's implied suggestion of doing it together (which often implies a home or less formal setting for calisthenics).\n*   Speaker A's \"Why not?\" is a logical request for clarification on Speaker B's stated preference.\n*   Speaker B's explanation regarding the gym is a direct and clear answer to Speaker A's question.\n\nThe conversation flows naturally from introducing calisthenics, to clarifying its nature, discussing its benefits compared to weightlifting, and then delving into personal preferences for workout environments. There are no irrelevant tangents or illogical jumps in topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is very good.\n\n*   **Pauses:** All pauses between speaker turns are brief (typically 1 second or less) and natural, indicating smooth turn-taking. For example, the pause between [00:05 - 00:06], [00:06 - 00:07], [00:19 - 00:20], and [00:38 - 00:39] are all 1 second or less. There are no prolonged pauses that would disrupt the flow of conversation.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap detected:\n    *   [00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A from 00:14 to 00:15. Speaker A finishes speaking at 00:15, and Speaker B starts speaking at 00:14. This is a 1-second overlap. Critically, Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and politeness, and it does not lead to communication breakdown or prolonged disruption. As per the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this falls into that category. It feels natural, showing engagement rather than being harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--46748",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Sarah. How are you doing?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Hey! I'm good, thanks. How are you?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm good, too. I just slept for like 12 hours I guess\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B: 12 hours? That's a lot! Were you feeling okay, or was it just a really long day?\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: Yeah, I think I was just exhausted. I don't even remember getting into bed last night.\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: Well, you probably needed the sleep. You should get some more rest today if you can.\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: Yeah, I might take a nap later. But I need to get some work done before I\n[00:28 - 00:36] Speaker B: Speaking of work, do you have any deadlines coming up? Maybe you can prioritize and finish the urgent stuff first, then rest.\n[00:36 - 00:44] Speaker A: That's a good idea. I do have a few things due soon, so I'll focus on those first. Then I can rest without worrying.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the ongoing conversation.\n- Speaker B's initial response to Speaker A's greeting is appropriate.\n- Speaker A's introduction of the \"12 hours of sleep\" topic is a natural extension of the \"how are you\" query.\n- Speaker B's follow-up questions about the excessive sleep (\"Were you feeling okay, or was it just a really long day?\") show engagement and logical curiosity.\n- Speaker A's explanation of exhaustion is a direct and coherent answer.\n- Speaker B's advice to get more rest is a relevant and empathetic response.\n- Speaker A's acknowledgment and the introduction of \"work\" seamlessly transition the topic, which Speaker B picks up on (\"Speaking of work\") to offer practical advice.\n- Speaker A's final response acknowledges the advice and indicates an intention to follow it, maintaining coherence.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses, topic shifts that are out of place, or logical inconsistencies. The conversation flows very naturally and coherently.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural back-and-forth conversation flow.\nThere are two instances of brief overlaps:\n- [00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B starts at 0:08 while Speaker A ends at 0:09, resulting in a 1-second overlap.\n- [00:28 - 00:36] Speaker B starts at 0:28 while Speaker A ends at 0:29, resulting in a 1-second overlap.\nAs per the evaluation criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" These 1-second overlaps are brief and typical of natural, engaged conversation where one speaker might anticipate or quickly respond to the other's closing remark. They do not constitute \"extended overlaps\" and do not disrupt the flow negatively. The conversation feels dynamic and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--479",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Ugh! I hate cotton candy! I don't know how people can eat it.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: I think it tastes great! I've eaten a lot of it.\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: Yeah, I guess I'm the only one in my family who hates it. But I guess my family's taste buds\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but why do you think your family is weird just because of that?\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker A: It's not just the cotton candy. They have some unusual tastes in food. Is there anything else you hate?\n[00:24 - 00:32] Speaker B: Well, not really. I guess my least favorite thing is sitting in a classroom all day, but I have to do that now for school. I just think it's really\n[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker A: Speaking of school, have you considered any activities that might make it less boring for you?\n[00:37 - 00:39] Speaker B: Yeah, school is definitely not fun.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates good logical consistency and topic coherence.\nSpeaker A initiates the conversation about cotton candy, and Speaker B responds with a differing opinion, maintaining relevance.\nSpeaker A then attempts to elaborate on their family's tastes, which leads to Speaker B's relevant interruption seeking clarification.\nSpeaker A clarifies and then smoothly transitions the topic by asking \"Is there anything else you hate?\", which Speaker B answers by introducing the topic of school.\nSpeaker A then leverages Speaker B's mention of \"school\" to shift the topic further to activities that might make school less boring. This \"Speaking of...\" transition is a natural and coherent way to pivot the conversation.\nThe only slight deviation in relevance comes from Speaker B's final response \"Yeah, school is definitely not fun.\" While it acknowledges Speaker A's previous statement about school, it doesn't directly answer the question \"have you considered any activities that might make it less boring for you?\". However, this is a minor point; the response is still within the topic of school and doesn't derail the conversation. Overall, the flow of topics is logical and coherent.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally natural and appropriate.\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker B's turn ([00:24 - 00:32]) and Speaker A's turn ([00:31 - 00:36]), where Speaker A begins speaking at 00:31 while Speaker B is still talking until 00:32. This is a 1-second overlap. According to the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This overlap is short and appears to be a natural conversational interjection rather than a prolonged interruption.\nThere is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn ending at 00:36 and Speaker B's turn starting at 00:37. This is a \"small pause\" and is also acceptable.\nNo extended overlaps or long pauses are detected that would significantly disrupt the flow of the conversation. The dialogue feels natural in its pacing.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--394",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Look out of the window David, there is ice on the lake. Actually their size all over the lake, and\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to cut you off, but do you think it's safe for everyone to be skating out there? The ice doesn't look that thick from here.\n[00:11 - 00:20] Speaker A: I think it's safe enough; there are many people skating already. But as I was saying, the ice covers the entire lake. Do you want to join them?\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker B: I'm not in the mood. When are we going back to the city?\n[00:24 - 00:30] Speaker A: Not until January the third. It was your dad's idea to spend Christmas at this country hotel.\n[00:30 - 00:34] Speaker B: I wanted to stay in New York. Barbara has asked me to a party on New Year's Eve.\n[00:34 - 00:42] Speaker A: Your dad works very hard at the bank. He needs a quiet Christmas. It will be nice for me too. I won't have to cook.\n[00:42 - 00:52] Speaker B: Oh, this is going to be the most boring Christmas that I've ever had. By the way, you mentioned earlier that the ice covers the entire lake—how thick do you think it is? I'm still a bit worried about the safety.\n[00:53 - 00:58] Speaker A: It's hard to say exactly, but considering how many people are out there, it should be thick enough.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, even when the topic shifts.\n*   Speaker B's initial interruption (00:05-00:11) is directly relevant to Speaker A's observation about the ice, raising a safety concern. Speaker A acknowledges this by addressing the safety question first before returning to their original point.\n*   The shift to discussing Christmas plans (00:21-00:42) is a natural progression, with Speaker B declining an invitation and then expressing a desire to return to the city, leading to a discussion about the family's holiday arrangements.\n*   Speaker B's return to the ice safety topic (00:42-00:52) is explicitly marked (\"By the way\") and links back to an earlier point, showing continued concern and maintaining coherence. Speaker A then responds directly to this renewed concern.\n*   There are no instances of non-sequiturs or abrupt, unmotivated topic changes. The conversation flows coherently, and participants effectively address each other's points and concerns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n*   There is one notable overlap: `[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B` overlaps with `[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A`. However, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this overlap by saying \"Sorry to cut you off,\" which makes the interruption natural and polite, rather than disruptive. This is a brief, purposeful overlap used to interject a pressing concern.\n*   There are no indications of long pauses between turns. The timestamps suggest a smooth, back-and-forth conversational rhythm.\n*   The turns are well-timed, and the speakers manage the conversation effectively without extended silences or disruptive overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--687",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Do you think you can get a ticket for me to The Book of Mormon at the Pantages Theatre next weekend?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: Of course! How many tickets do you need?\n[00:08 - 00:19] Speaker A: I want to go with a friend, but we only have two tickets, so I'm trying to get two tickets for each of us. I know it's sold out, so hopefully we can buy our tickets soon.\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I just realized, if it's sold out, how do you plan to get the extra tickets? Are you thinking of using a resale platform?\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker A: Yes, I'm considering using a resale platform. I'll be sure to keep an eye out. You like that show, right?\n[00:34 - 00:39] Speaker B: Yes! I'm so excited to see it. How about you? Any fun plans this weekend?\n[00:39 - 00:48] Speaker A: I'm not sure yet - I guess I'll have to wait to see the schedule at work tomorrow. I'm hoping to try to go up to the mountains this weekend though.\n[00:49 - 00:54] Speaker B: That's awesome! We always go up to Whistler in the spring to ski. It's always so beautiful! I remember\n[00:53 - 00:58] Speaker A: Speaking of Whistler, do you think it's better to book accommodations early for a good deal?\n[00:59 - 01:03] Speaker B: Definitely, booking early is always a good idea for Whistler. Do you like to ski?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout.\n1.  **[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B:** Directly responds to Speaker A's request by asking for necessary clarification (\"How many tickets do you need?\"), which is perfectly logical.\n2.  **[00:08 - 00:19] Speaker A:** Provides the requested information and introduces a key challenge (\"sold out\"), maintaining topic coherence.\n3.  **[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker B:** Addresses the \"sold out\" issue immediately and logically, proposing a solution (\"resale platform?\"). The \"Sorry to interrupt\" is a polite conversational marker, not an actual disruption to relevance.\n4.  **[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker A:** Confirms the suggested solution and then smoothly transitions to a related but new topic (\"You like that show, right?\"), showing natural conversational flow.\n5.  **[00:34 - 00:39] Speaker B:** Answers the question about the show and then initiates another natural topic shift (\"Any fun plans this weekend?\").\n6.  **[00:39 - 00:48] Speaker A:** Answers the question about weekend plans, providing details that lead into the next turn (\"go up to the mountains\").\n7.  **[00:49 - 00:54] Speaker B:** Connects Speaker A's mention of \"mountains\" to their own experience in Whistler, showing active listening and relating.\n8.  **[00:53 - 00:58] Speaker A:** Uses Speaker B's mention of \"Whistler\" to ask a relevant follow-up question about travel planning (\"book accommodations early?\"). This is a seamless topic continuation despite the slight overlap.\n9.  **[00:59 - 01:03] Speaker B:** Provides a direct answer to Speaker A's question and then asks a follow-up related to the activity in Whistler (\"Do you like to ski?\"), demonstrating continued engagement and topic development.\n\nOverall, the responses are consistently relevant, build logically on previous turns, and demonstrate natural conversational topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, characterized by natural turn-taking with minimal pauses and only one brief, acceptable overlap.\n1.  **Pauses:** Most turns have zero or one-second pauses between them (`[00:05 - 00:08]`, `[00:08 - 00:19]`, `[00:19 - 00:26]`, `[00:27 - 00:33]` (1s pause), `[00:34 - 00:39]` (1s pause), `[00:39 - 00:48]`, `[00:49 - 00:54]` (1s pause), `[00:59 - 01:03]` (1s pause)). These short pauses are well within the natural range for human conversation and do not indicate hesitation or disruption.\n2.  **Overlaps:** There is one instance of overlap: `[00:53 - 00:58] Speaker A:` overlaps with `[00:49 - 00:54] Speaker B:`. Speaker A starts speaking at `00:53` while Speaker B is still speaking until `00:54`. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B was saying \"I remember\" potentially trailing off, and Speaker A cut in with \"Speaking of Whistler\". As per the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This overlap is brief and does not disrupt the conversational flow or meaning. It feels like a natural, eager turn-take. There are no extended overlaps.\n\nThe dialogue flows smoothly without any prolonged silences or disruptive overlapping turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--645",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Do you know who Nietzsche is? He's an interesting philosopher.\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: I actually had a class on him! I learned that he believes in the truth of an experience over the facts that describe the experience\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but do you mean he values subjective experience more than objective reality?\n[00:15 - 00:24] Speaker B: Yes, exactly! He thinks that individual experiences are more revealing than just the facts. I think this perspective can really change the way we perceive the world.\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: That's pretty interesting! Do you think that will change the way that you perceive the world?\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker B: I think I understand what he means. I think it's about confronting your own ignorance and developing more self-awareness and\n[00:35 - 00:43] Speaker A: empathy, right? That's a profound way to look at it. You've said so much more than I expected you to. This is a great conversation!\n[00:44 - 00:47] Speaker B: Haha, no problem. What would you like to talk about next?\n[00:48 - 00:50] Speaker A: I don't know - I am feeling pretty sleepy.\n[00:51 - 00:53] Speaker B: You are not going to try to wake me up, right?\n[00:53 - 00:56] Speaker A: Haha, no! I think I'm going to go to bed.\n[00:57 - 00:57] Speaker B: Good night!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance throughout. Speaker B consistently provides direct and thoughtful answers to Speaker A's questions and comments, demonstrating a strong grasp of the topic initiated (Nietzsche's philosophy) and then a natural shift to personal feelings. Speaker A's responses are also highly relevant, seeking clarification, providing positive feedback, and initiating a natural winding down of the conversation. There are no instances of irrelevant or nonsensical replies, and the logical consistency of the conversation is maintained from the initial philosophical discussion to the casual goodnight.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high.\n**Overlaps:**\n*   [00:09 - 00:10] Speaker A's \"Sorry to jump in\" indicates an awareness of a brief overlap, which is a natural occurrence for eager clarification in real conversation. It's not an extended or harmful overlap.\n*   [00:35 - 00:35] Speaker A completes Speaker B's sentence (\"empathy, right?\"), which is a cooperative and very brief overlap, indicating close listening and engagement, not a disruption.\n*   [00:53 - 00:53] Speaker A's \"Haha, no!\" overlaps Speaker B's last word, typical of quick, responsive exchanges and not an extended overlap.\nAll detected overlaps are brief, natural, and contribute to, rather than detract from, the conversational flow. They are not extended or problematic.\n\n**Pauses:**\n*   [00:43 - 00:44] A 1-second pause: This is a natural beat after Speaker A's positive concluding remark, allowing Speaker B to acknowledge and then smoothly transition the conversation.\n*   [00:47 - 00:48] A 1-second pause: Natural after Speaker B asks \"What would you like to talk about next?\", giving Speaker A time to respond.\n*   [00:50 - 00:51] A 1-second pause: Natural after Speaker A mentions being sleepy, allowing Speaker B to formulate a humorous response.\n*   [00:56 - 00:57] A 1-second pause: Natural before Speaker B's closing \"Good night!\".\nAll pauses are brief and serve as natural transitions, not indicating any conversational breakdown or awkwardness. They are not long or problematic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--280",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Excuse me, sir. What would you like to eat, Chinese food or western food?\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker B: I'd like to have Chinese food.\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: Are you going to have this set course or have dinner in the dining room?\n[00:11 - 00:12] Speaker B: Right here, please.\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A: Please put down the table in front of you. It's more comfortable that you can\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker B: Oh, thank you. So nice you are.\n[00:18 - 00:26] Speaker A: It's my pleasure. What would you like to drink, milk, tea, coffee, orange juice or iced water?\n[00:27 - 00:29] Speaker B: I want a cup of bean milk. Do you have any available\n[00:28 - 00:30] Speaker A: Yes, here you are. Enjoy your meal.\n[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker B: Thanks a lot. Oh, excuse me. Can I take two value meals? And I want some chili paste.\n[00:36 - 00:38] Speaker A: OK, enjoy yourself, sir.\n[00:38 - 00:46] Speaker B: Oh, sorry to bother you. I want to know what kind of meat it is. Also, I was asking earlier if you have bean milk—did you say yes?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with good response relevance. Speaker A initiates an order, Speaker B responds clearly, and Speaker A follows up with logical clarifying questions. Speaker B's responses are also relevant in the initial turns.\n\nHowever, issues begin to emerge:\n1.  **[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker B:** \"Can I take two value meals?\" This is slightly inconsistent with the earlier \"Right here, please\" (implying dining in) and \"take\" (implying take-out). While a minor point, it shows a slight lack of clarity or consistency from Speaker B. The request for \"chili paste\" is fine as an add-on.\n2.  **[00:38 - 00:46] Speaker B:** This turn presents significant issues in response relevance and logical consistency.\n    *   \"I want to know what kind of meat it is.\" This question appears out of context. There's no prior mention of meat or a dish to which this question would refer. It breaks topic coherence entirely.\n    *   \"Also, I was asking earlier if you have bean milk—did you say yes?\" This is a major breakdown in logical consistency. Speaker A *already confirmed* having bean milk (\"Yes, here you are.\") and seemingly provided it right after Speaker B's initial request for it. Speaker B re-asking this indicates a significant failure in listening, memory, or comprehension, making the conversation illogical at this point.\n\nDue to the critical issues in Speaker B's final turn, particularly the re-asking of an already answered and acted-upon question, Response Relevance is significantly compromised.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally very good.\n1.  **Overlaps:**\n    *   **[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker B** starts speaking while **Speaker A** is still finishing their sentence **[00:12 - 00:17]**. This is a brief, natural overlap (1 second) that indicates active listening and smooth turn-taking, not a disruptive one.\n    *   **[00:28 - 00:30] Speaker A** starts speaking while **Speaker B** is finishing their question **[00:27 - 00:29]**. Again, this is a brief, natural overlap (1 second) that contributes to the flow rather than hindering it.\n2.  **Pauses:**\n    *   There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and natural, typically 1 second or less, which is appropriate for a real-time conversation.\n\nOverall, the interactional fluency is excellent, demonstrating smooth turn-taking and appropriate pacing.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--124370",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey, I've been thinking about what you said the other day and I really think you should consider taking\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Oh, yeah? What was that?\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: Well, I think it would make sense for us to move in together.\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: Hmm. I don't know about that. We've only been dating for a few months, and\n[00:13 - 00:24] Speaker A: I get that, but we're practically living together already. We're always at each other's place, and think about how much money we'd save on rent. Plus, we'd get to spend more time together.\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: I see your point. But I'm just not sure if I'm ready for that kind of commitment yet.\n[00:29 - 00:43] Speaker A: It doesn't have to be a big deal. We can just take it one step at a time and see how it goes. If it doesn't work out, we can always move back out. But I really think this could be a good thing for us. What do you think?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement.\n- Speaker A initiates a topic, and Speaker B's immediate response \"Oh, yeah? What was that?\" is a direct and logical follow-up.\n- Speaker A then clearly states the topic (\"move in together\"), which Speaker B responds to with a valid concern (\"only been dating for a few months\").\n- Speaker A acknowledges this concern (\"I get that\") and provides counter-arguments and benefits, maintaining topic coherence.\n- Speaker B acknowledges Speaker A's points (\"I see your point\") but re-emphasizes their core hesitation (\"not sure if I'm ready for that kind of commitment yet\").\n- Speaker A then directly addresses the \"commitment\" concern by reframing it and offering solutions (\"doesn't have to be a big deal,\" \"take it one step at a time,\" \"if it doesn't work out, we can always move back out\"), before asking for Speaker B's opinion again.\nThe conversation flows naturally with ideas and counter-ideas, all staying within the clear topic of moving in together. There are no irrelevant statements or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps identified:\n    - [00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B's \"Oh, yeah?\" starts while Speaker A is finishing \"taking\" (1 second overlap). This is a very natural and common overlap, indicating eagerness or quick uptake, not a harmful interruption.\n    - [00:13 - 00:24] Speaker A's \"I get that\" starts while Speaker B is finishing \"and\" (1 second overlap). This is also a natural, cooperative overlap where Speaker A is interjecting to acknowledge and respond to Speaker B's point, rather than waiting for full completion. Neither of these are \"extended overlaps\" that would hinder understanding or conversational flow.\n- **Pauses:** There is one short pause identified:\n    - [00:09 - 00:10] A 1-second pause between Speaker A's suggestion and Speaker B's response. This is a very natural and acceptable pause, allowing Speaker B to process the significant suggestion before responding. It is not a \"long pause\" that would indicate a breakdown in communication or awkwardness.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking feel very natural and fluid, consistent with a real-life conversation between two people.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--334",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm frustrated. We're supposed to do our assignment on the computer, but I have difficulty getting access to the computers in the library because\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but have you tried reserving a computer in advance? Sometimes they let you book a slot ahead of time.\n[00:13 - 00:26] Speaker A: I haven't tried that yet, but I'll definitely look into it. I was actually going to mention that the library hours are also a problem for me. I'm looking forward to the day when I can afford to get my own laptop so\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker B: I totally get that. But before we move on, what were you saying about the library hours? Are they not convenient for you?\n[00:31 - 00:38] Speaker A: Yeah, they close earlier than I need, especially on weekends. It makes it hard to get everything done.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides relevant suggestions or asks clarifying questions related to Speaker A's expressed frustrations.\n- Speaker A introduces the problem of computer access for assignments.\n- Speaker B immediately offers a practical solution (\"reserving a computer\"). This is highly relevant to the problem.\n- Speaker A acknowledges the suggestion and then introduces a related issue: library hours. This is a natural progression of connected problems.\n- Speaker B picks up on the new topic (\"library hours\") and asks for clarification, showing attentiveness and guiding the conversation.\n- Speaker A then elaborates on the library hours issue, directly answering B's question.\nThe conversation maintains logical consistency and topic coherence throughout, flowing naturally from one related point to the next.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are two instances of slight overlap ([00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B starting at 0:07 while Speaker A finishes at 0:08, and [00:25 - 00:31] Speaker B starting at 0:25 while Speaker A finishes at 0:26).\n- In both cases, these are *brief* overlaps (1 second each). Crucially, Speaker B uses discourse markers like \"Sorry to jump in\" and \"But before we move on\" which explicitly acknowledge the overlap and manage the turn-taking smoothly. These are not disruptive; rather, they indicate active listening and eagerness to contribute, making the conversation sound natural and engaged.\n- There are no long pauses between turns. Each speaker picks up the conversation promptly after the previous speaker finishes.\nOverall, the turn-taking is fluid and natural, without any signs of prolonged interruptions or awkward silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--358",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi, can I help you?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Yes. We have a reservation.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: What's your name, Sir?\n[00:05 - 00:05] Speaker B: Jack.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: Yes Sir. We have your reservation. Could you fill up these forms, I'll need\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B: The reservation was for a double, for three nights. Wasn't it?\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker A: Yes, that's correct. But I was just about to ask you to fill up these forms, please.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are consistently relevant and logically connected. Speaker B's initial statements (\"Yes. We have a reservation.\" and \"Jack.\") are direct answers to Speaker A's questions. Speaker A's confirmation and instruction (\"Yes Sir. We have your reservation. Could you fill up these forms...\") are a logical progression. Speaker B's interjection about the reservation details (\"The reservation was for a double, for three nights. Wasn't it?\") is highly relevant to the overall context of checking in and directly related to the \"reservation\" topic, even though it momentarily interrupts Speaker A's instruction. Speaker A handles this well by first confirming Speaker B's detail (\"Yes, that's correct.\") and then smoothly redirecting back to the original instruction (\"But I was just about to ask you to fill up these forms, please.\"). There are no off-topic remarks or incoherent statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses between turns; the longest pause is 1 second between [00:12] and [00:13], which is perfectly natural. While Speaker B does interject before Speaker A finishes their sentence at [00:10], this is a brief interjection, not an \"extended overlap.\" Such quick turn-taking, especially when one speaker is clarifying or seeking confirmation, is common and acceptable in natural conversation and does not hinder understanding. Speaker A's cut-off sentence at [00:10] (\"I'll need\") is also a natural speech phenomenon when interrupted. The dialogue flows smoothly, and the speakers manage the turns effectively without any noticeable awkwardness or delays that would disrupt the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--459",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Oh, it's getting late. I've got to run. It was nice talking to you, Karren.\n[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker B: Thanks, Tim. Nice meeting you, too. By the way, before you go, do you know if there's another meeting scheduled for next week? I forgot to check the calendar earlier.\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker A: I was actually going to mention that. There is a meeting next week, but the time hasn't been confirmed yet. I'll make sure to send you\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker B: Oh, okay. Just let me know when you find out. I wouldn't want to miss it.\n[00:25 - 00:33] Speaker A: Absolutely, I'll keep you posted. Also, I was about to say that I'll make sure to email you the details once it's finalized.\n[00:33 - 00:36] Speaker B: Great, thanks. I guess we'll see each other around.\n[00:36 - 00:39] Speaker A: Yeah, I hope so. Well, take it easy.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's decision to ask about the meeting \"before you go\" is a natural way to introduce a new, yet relevant, topic in a departing conversation, showing good awareness of the time constraint. Speaker A directly addresses the question about the meeting, and Speaker B's follow-up is a clear and logical next step. Speaker A's subsequent completion of their previous thought (\"I'll make sure to email you the details\") after being interrupted shows excellent conversational memory and coherence. The conversation flows smoothly from closing, to a brief information exchange, and back to closing, with all turns logically connected and maintaining topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits excellent interactional fluency. There are no long pauses between turns; the longest gap between turns is 1 second (e.g., from 00:04 to 00:05), which is perfectly natural. There is an implied brief overlap between Speaker A's \"I'll make sure to send you\" at [00:21] and Speaker B's immediate \"Oh, okay. Just let me know...\" at [00:21]. This is a very common and natural occurrence in human conversation, where one speaker anticipates or interjects a quick response, and it does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or \"extended\" overlap. Speaker A then seamlessly picks up and completes their thought in the subsequent turn, indicating the brief overlap did not disrupt the flow or understanding. The turn-taking is efficient and natural throughout.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--240",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Do you know where I can park?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Do you need a spot here or off maybe near\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, I actually need a space on campus.\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: There's a parking structure for students.\n[00:10 - 00:11] Speaker A: Where can I find it?\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker B: Go to the western side of the campus, and you'll find it there.\n[00:15 - 00:16] Speaker A: Is it full?\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B: When I went up there, it wasn't full at around 9\n[00:18 - 00:19] Speaker A: Oh, when was that?\n[00:19 - 00:20] Speaker B: Sometime this morning.\n[00:21 - 00:22] Speaker A: Would it be full now?\n[00:23 - 00:24] Speaker B: I am really not sure.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining a clear and consistent topic (finding parking on campus).\n- Speaker B's initial clarification (\"Do you need a spot here or off maybe near\") is relevant to narrow down Speaker A's broad query.\n- Speaker A's interruption to clarify (\"I actually need a space on campus\") is highly relevant and necessary.\n- Speaker B's suggestion of \"a parking structure for students\" directly addresses the clarified need.\n- Subsequent questions from Speaker A (\"Where can I find it?\", \"Is it full?\", \"Oh, when was that?\", \"Would it be full now?\") are direct, logical follow-ups to the information provided by Speaker B.\n- Speaker B's answers (directions, availability based on past experience, clarifying time, and stating \"I am really not sure\") are all relevant and honest responses to Speaker A's inquiries.\nThere are no instances of miscommunication, off-topic remarks, or illogical jumps in the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the conversation flows smoothly with minimal gaps.\n- There are two instances of overlap:\n    - [00:02 - 00:06] Speaker A: \"Sorry to interrupt, I actually need a space on campus.\" overlaps with [00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: \"Do you need a spot here or off maybe near\". This is a brief, functional overlap, explicitly acknowledged by Speaker A (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating an attempt to clarify quickly. This is acceptable and contributes to natural conversation rather than being disruptive.\n    - [00:18 - 00:19] Speaker A: \"Oh, when was that?\" overlaps with [00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B: \"When I went up there, it wasn't full at around 9\". This is a very brief overlap, serving as an immediate clarification question, common in fluid dialogue. It does not impede understanding or indicate a breakdown in communication.\nBoth overlaps are brief and serve a communicative purpose (clarification), falling within the acceptable range of \"brief overlaps\" rather than being \"prolonged\" or \"harmful.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--237",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Come on, let's go for lunch, Gregory.\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: I was going to eat in, I'm short on cash this\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: Don't worry about it. It's on me.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: In that case, I'm with you. Em, this is good.\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: I agree. Hi, guess what? I went bungee jumping last weekend.\n[00:15 - 00:16] Speaker B: Are you on the up and up?\n[00:17 - 00:21] Speaker A: Definitely. You know, I'm into serious sport in a big way.\n[00:21 - 00:23] Speaker B: If you ask me, you've got a screw loose somewhere.\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: Come off it, it's not that serious. You should DIY, do it yourself, sometimes.\n[00:29 - 00:32] Speaker B: Fat chance, I'm too scared of bungee jumping.\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker A: No, really, I think you'd like it. I adapted to it right off the bat, and\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker B: Wait, you said you were short on cash earlier. How did you manage to go bungee jumping?\n[00:42 - 00:52] Speaker A: Oh, I didn't get to finish earlier—I was going to say I had some gift vouchers saved up. But seriously, about bungee jumping, I think you'd surprise yourself.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Logical Consistency:** The dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency.\n    *   Speaker B's initial reluctance due to being \"short on cash\" is directly addressed by Speaker A's offer to pay.\n    *   Speaker A's introduction of the bungee jumping topic flows naturally as a new conversational point.\n    *   Speaker B's challenge at [00:37] (\"Wait, you said you were short on cash earlier. How did you manage to go bungee jumping?\") is a highly logical and consistent check of Speaker A's prior statement against their new revelation. This shows excellent attention to detail and memory within the conversation.\n    *   Speaker A's explanation at [00:42] (\"Oh, I didn't get to finish earlier—I was going to say I had some gift vouchers saved up.\") provides a logically sound resolution to Speaker B's challenge, maintaining credibility.\n*   **Topic Coherence:** The dialogue starts with a clear topic (lunch plans), transitions smoothly to a new topic (bungee jumping) initiated by Speaker A, and then returns to resolve a logical inconsistency related to the initial topic before reaffirming the secondary topic. The transitions are natural, mimicking real-life conversation where topics can shift or be revisited based on memory or new information. There are no abrupt, nonsensical topic changes.\n\nOverall, the responses are highly relevant, logically consistent, and maintain good topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    *   [00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B & [00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A jumps in quickly to alleviate Speaker B's concern about money, which is a common and natural conversational dynamic, showing active listening and a desire to respond promptly. It's not prolonged and doesn't hinder understanding.\n    *   [00:33 - 00:38] Speaker A & [00:37 - 00:42] Speaker B: This is also a 1-second overlap. Speaker B interjects with a critical question based on earlier information. This type of interruption is purposeful and indicates engagement, not a lack of fluency. It's brief and immediately relevant to the preceding speech.\n    Both overlaps are short, purposeful, and characteristic of natural, dynamic conversation rather than being disruptive or prolonged.\n*   **Long Pauses:** No long pauses are indicated in the timestamps. The turns flow smoothly from one speaker to the next, maintaining a good conversational rhythm.\n\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, characterized by natural turn-taking and brief, purposeful overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--116641",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, wait up! I need to get on that ferry!\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: I'm sorry, miss, but the ferry has already left the\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker A: No, it can't have! I need to get to the other side! Is there any way you could call it back?\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: I'm afraid there's nothing I can do. You'll have to wait for the next one, which\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: But that could be hours! I have an important meeting, is there any other way I can cross?\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B: I'm sorry, miss, but there's nothing I can do. The next ferry is your best option.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker A's initial request to get on the ferry is met with a direct explanation from Speaker B.\n- Speaker A's disbelief and subsequent question about calling the ferry back are logically addressed by Speaker B's \"nothing I can do\" and suggestion for the next one.\n- Speaker A's expression of urgency due to a meeting and inquiry about alternative crossing methods are also directly answered by Speaker B, reaffirming the previous statement and confirming no other options.\nEach turn builds on the previous one, maintaining the focus on Speaker A's predicament and Speaker B's limited ability to help. There are no irrelevant turns or breaks in logic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally very good.\n- There is one brief overlap at `[00:15 - 00:16]` where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap, which falls under the category of \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\" as per the guidelines. It indicates Speaker A's impatience, which is a natural conversational dynamic, rather than a significant fluency issue.\n- There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn ending at `[00:21]` and Speaker B's turn starting at `[00:22]`. This is a \"small pause\" and is acceptable.\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected that would be considered harmful to the interactional flow. The dialogue feels natural and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--671",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey! I want to watch \"The Outlander Series\" tonight. Do you want to watch it with me? I\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but isn't that the show with time travel and romance? I've been wanting to watch it too!\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker A: Yes, that's the one! How about we get some Indian food, then settle in\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: Actually, how about pizza instead? I had Indian food for lunch today.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A proposes watching a show, and Speaker B immediately confirms their interest and knowledge of it. Speaker A then suggests a plan involving food, to which Speaker B offers a relevant alternative with a clear justification. The conversation flows logically from suggesting an activity to planning the details, showing natural back-and-forth communication. Each turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one, maintaining a clear and understandable conversational thread.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are two instances of overlaps, but both are brief (1 second each) and do not detract from the conversation's flow.\n1. At [00:04 - 00:05], Speaker B's \"Sorry to interrupt, but isn't that...\" overlaps the end of Speaker A's sentence. This is a very natural and common occurrence in enthusiastic conversation, especially when Speaker B is eager to confirm details or express their own interest. The apology further indicates it's a brief, polite interjection rather than a disruptive overlap.\n2. At [00:15 - 00:16], Speaker B's \"Actually, how about pizza instead?\" overlaps the very end of Speaker A's suggestion. This, too, is a brief and natural interjection, indicating that Speaker B has already formulated their thought and is ready to jump in with their preference as Speaker A concludes.\nNeither of these overlaps is prolonged or harmful; they contribute to the natural, dynamic feel of the conversation. There are no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--144171",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Mom. I was just thinking...\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Thinking about what, sweetie?\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker A: About money.\n[00:06 - 00:06] Speaker B: What about it?\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: I wish I had some money so that I could buy myself a new dress or\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker B: Aleya, you know we don't have a lot of money right now. Your father is still looking for a job and I'm trying to save as much as I can.\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker A: But I really want a new toy!\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker B: I understand, honey. Let me see what I can do. Maybe we can go to the store tomorrow and see if there's something on sale that you might like,\n[00:27 - 00:29] Speaker A: Do you think Dad will find a job soon?\n[00:29 - 00:37] Speaker B: I'm hopeful, sweetie. But in the meantime, we'll have to be careful with our spending. How about we look for something small and affordable?\n[00:37 - 00:38] Speaker A: Okay, I guess...",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence throughout. Speaker A initiates the topic of money, and Speaker B consistently responds by explaining the family's financial situation and offering solutions or compromises. When Speaker A shifts from wanting a \"dress\" to a \"toy,\" Speaker B maintains empathy while reinforcing the need for careful spending. Speaker A's question about the father's job is a logical progression, connecting to the overall financial theme. Speaker B's responses are always relevant, providing context, understanding, and practical advice. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or illogical jumps in conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. Turn-taking is natural and prompt, with no noticeable long pauses between speaker turns. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  At [00:10 - 00:11], Speaker B begins their turn while Speaker A is finishing. This is a 1-second overlap.\n2.  At [00:27 - 00:28], Speaker A begins their turn while Speaker B is finishing. This is also a 1-second overlap.\nAs per the guidelines, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" These overlaps are indeed brief and sound natural, indicating a flowing conversation rather than harmful interruptions. They do not impede comprehension or the natural rhythm of the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--412",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Did you ever read Capital, Vol. 1? It's one of my favorite books.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: What do you like about it?\n[00:06 - 00:15] Speaker A: The ideas are so interesting. Everyone talks about the Communist Manifesto, but Vol. 1 is so much better. It's easier to understand the\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but what specifically makes it easier to read compared to the Communist Manifesto?\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker A: The language is more accessible and the concepts are explained in greater detail. But I haven't mentioned that I also like to delve into\n[00:28 - 00:30] Speaker B: Do you also like to read other genres or just political theory?\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm actually a big reader. I'll probably read a book a week once I get out of school.\n[00:38 - 00:41] Speaker B: That's amazing. I know how long it takes me to read one book!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout.\n*   Speaker B's first response, \"What do you like about it?\", directly follows Speaker A's statement about Capital, Vol. 1 being a favorite book, showing direct engagement with the topic.\n*   When Speaker A elaborates, comparing it to the Communist Manifesto, Speaker B's interruption, \"Sorry to cut in, but what specifically makes it easier to read compared to the Communist Manifesto?\", is highly relevant. It seeks clarification on a specific point Speaker A was making, demonstrating active listening and a desire for deeper understanding. This is a logical follow-up question that pushes the conversation forward.\n*   After Speaker A explains, Speaker B picks up on A's attempt to broaden the topic (\"But I haven't mentioned that I also like to delve into\") by asking, \"Do you also like to read other genres or just political theory?\". This shows B is attuned to A's cues and tries to expand the conversation naturally, maintaining coherence while shifting the sub-topic slightly.\n*   Finally, Speaker B's \"That's amazing. I know how long it takes me to read one book!\" is a natural and empathetic response to Speaker A's claim of reading a book a week, personalizing the interaction and reinforcing the shared topic of reading.\nOverall, the topic coherence is excellent, with each speaker's turn logically building on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n*   There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and natural, indicating an engaged conversation.\n*   The only notable overlap occurs at [00:14 - 00:20], where Speaker B cuts in on Speaker A. However, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to cut in,\" which mitigates the disruption and indicates polite, engaged listening rather than a rude interruption. The overlap duration (1 second where Speaker B starts talking while Speaker A is still speaking) is brief and purposeful, aimed at clarification, which is acceptable in natural conversation, especially when acknowledged. It doesn't disrupt the flow or cause confusion.\n*   The dialogue maintains a lively and natural rhythm without any prolonged silences or disruptive interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--22828",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi, I'm looking for the wallet I left here earlier.\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Oh, you mean the one that was turned in to lost and found by\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker A: Yes, exactly! Is it still here?\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker B: No, somebody came in and claimed it a few minutes after you left. They\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: Claimed it? Did they provide any identification or proof that it was theirs?\n[00:17 - 00:21] Speaker B: Yes, they did. They had a detailed description of the wallet and its contents.\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker A: Oh, okay. Thanks anyway.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining a clear and coherent topic about the lost wallet.\n- Speaker B's initial response about the lost and found is a natural and expected follow-up to Speaker A's inquiry.\n- Speaker A's \"Is it still here?\" directly addresses the implication of Speaker B's partial sentence.\n- Speaker B's explanation that it was claimed is a direct answer and raises a new point for discussion.\n- Speaker A's questioning of the claim's validity (\"Did they provide any identification or proof?\") is a highly logical and natural reaction to such a situation.\n- Speaker B's detailed explanation regarding the description of contents provides a satisfactory and logical answer.\n- Speaker A's final \"Oh, okay. Thanks anyway.\" signifies comprehension and closure.\nThe conversation flows smoothly and purposefully, with no irrelevant turns or breaks in logical consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural and responsive conversational pace.\n- Brief overlaps occur at `[00:06 - 00:08]` (Speaker A overlaps Speaker B for 1 second) and `[00:12 - 00:16]` (Speaker A overlaps Speaker B for 1 second). These are not extended overlaps but rather brief, natural instances of speakers jumping in, often to confirm or ask a follow-up question quickly, which is characteristic of fluent, engaged conversation rather than disruptive interruption. For instance, Speaker A's \"Yes, exactly!\" is a quick confirmation, and \"Claimed it?\" is an immediate, surprised reaction, both enhancing the natural feel of the dialogue. The brief nature and context of these overlaps make them acceptable and contribute to the sense of real-time interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--245",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: All right, Bill. Here's your daily exercise schedule. You are to jog before breakfast to\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Jog? Are you sure that's a good idea? I haven't jogged in years.\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker A: Yes, it's important to start slow. Then, you are to walk to the park\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker B: Walk? I usually drive. How far are we talking about here?\n[00:16 - 00:29] Speaker A: Just a short walk to work. And then, thirty minutes in the gym at lunchtime. I was about to mention that you should also use the stairs, never the elevator, but I see you're already concerned about the gym time.\n[00:29 - 00:32] Speaker B: Oh no, the stairs too? This is going to be tough.\n[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker A: And three times a week, you can either swim, play racquetball, or handball.\n[00:38 - 00:40] Speaker B: Oh no, I don't even know how to swim properly.\n[00:40 - 00:47] Speaker A: Well, you can choose racquetball or handball instead. But let's not forget, it's time for the dance class now.\n[00:48 - 00:50] Speaker B: Dance class? I wasn't expecting that!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker A consistently introduces elements of the exercise schedule, and Speaker B reacts to each new, challenging instruction with questions or concerns that are directly related to the proposed activity (e.g., questioning jogging after years, asking about walking distance, expressing surprise about stairs, or discomfort with swimming). Speaker A then addresses these concerns by clarifying, offering alternatives, or continuing to outline the plan. The conversation maintains logical consistency and topic coherence throughout, focusing on the implementation and reception of the exercise regimen.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are minor, brief overlaps, such as Speaker B's first question (\"Jog?\") starting one second before Speaker A finishes their sentence [00:04 - 00:05], and similarly with \"Walk?\" [00:12 - 00:13]. These are short (1 second) and natural, indicating active engagement rather than disruptive interruption. There are no extended overlaps. Pauses between turns are also brief, typically 1 second or immediate, which contributes to a natural, flowing conversation. There are no long, awkward silences detected.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--326",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Would you show us the menu?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Sure. Here you can take\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker A: Oh, before I forget, do you have any specials today?\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Actually, yes, we do have a chef's special. But first, what would you like to order?\n[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker A: I'd like to have prawn cocktail, and tomato soup for the main course, I'd like steak with onion, with some black coffee afterwards.\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker B: Sorry, tomato soup is not being served today, but we have egg soup, it's very delicious. Why don't you try it instead? I\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker A: Egg soup sounds interesting, but could you tell me more about the chef's special before I decide?\n[00:32 - 00:38] Speaker B: The chef's special today is grilled salmon with a lemon butter sauce. It's one of our most popular dishes.\n[00:38 - 00:43] Speaker A: That does sound good, but I think I'll stick with the egg soup. I'll try it.\n[00:44 - 00:45] Speaker B: Would you like to have a drink?\n[00:45 - 00:48] Speaker A: Well, I'll have a glass of mineral water.\n[00:48 - 00:49] Speaker B: Anything else?\n[00:49 - 00:52] Speaker A: No, thank you. I think it's enough for dinner.\n[00:52 - 00:54] Speaker B: OK. I'll be back soon.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains good response relevance and topic coherence. Speakers stay on the topic of ordering food in a restaurant.\n\nHowever, there is a minor logical inconsistency in the flow:\n1.  At [00:00-00:01], Speaker A asks for the menu.\n2.  At [00:02-00:06], Speaker A interrupts Speaker B to ask about specials *before* the menu is seemingly provided or the special details are given.\n3.  At [00:06-00:12], Speaker B acknowledges the special but immediately asks, \"But first, what would you like to order?\" without detailing the special or confirming the menu handover. This is a slight break in logical consistency, as Speaker A just asked about the special and the menu.\n4.  At [00:12-00:20], Speaker A proceeds to order, despite not having received the details of the special or seemingly the menu. This makes the flow slightly unnatural given the preceding turns where Speaker A inquired about them.\n5.  This logical gap is later rectified by Speaker A at [00:26-00:31], who re-asks for the chef's special details, which Speaker B then provides.\n\nDespite this slight hiccup in the initial ordering phase, the conversation effectively resolves the information gaps and progresses to a complete order. The core topics are maintained, and misunderstandings are temporary. The issue is more about conversational efficiency and sequencing rather than a complete lack of relevance or consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is largely good. There are no extended overlaps or prolonged pauses that disrupt the conversation flow.\n\n1.  **Overlap:** There is a brief overlap at [00:02-00:03] where Speaker A starts speaking (\"Oh, before I forget...\") at the same time Speaker B is saying \"Sure. Here you can take\". This is a common and acceptable brief overlap, indicating natural turn-taking where one speaker anticipates or interjects.\n2.  **Pauses:** There are small pauses of approximately 1 second at [00:31-00:32] and [00:43-00:44]. These are considered \"small pauses\" and are acceptable, not hindering the flow.\nOverall, the pacing feels natural, and there are no significant fluency issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--551",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Do you read a lot of books?\n[00:01 - 00:08] Speaker B: Not as much as I used to. I used to read philosophy and science textbooks in college. But I'm not too much of a fiction reader\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I'm curious, which philosophy books did you find most impactful during your college years?\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker B: Definitely Plato's Republic. You can take a look at the classics in the University of Washington library if you ever visit Seattle!\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker A: That sounds interesting. You mentioned science textbooks earlier—what kind of science books did you read?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's question about reading habits and provides relevant details (philosophy, science, not fiction).\n- Speaker A's subsequent question (0:08 - 0:15) directly picks up on Speaker B's mention of \"philosophy,\" showing active listening and a desire for elaboration on a previously stated topic. The \"sorry to interrupt\" indicates self-awareness and natural conversational etiquette.\n- Speaker B's response (0:15 - 0:22) directly answers Speaker A's specific query about impactful philosophy books.\n- Speaker A's final question (0:22 - 0:29) then coherently shifts focus to another detail B mentioned earlier (\"science textbooks\"), demonstrating good memory and topic management within the conversation.\nThe dialogue flows naturally and logically, with each turn building upon or referring back to previous statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- **Overlaps:** The transcript explicitly states Speaker A says \"Sorry to interrupt\" at 0:08. This suggests a brief, potentially intended interruption or an immediate turn-take, which Speaker A acknowledges. This is a natural feature of human conversation and not indicative of a significant fluency issue or prolonged overlap. The provided timestamps (Speaker B ends at 0:08, Speaker A starts at 0:08) indicate an immediate turn change rather than a prolonged overlap. The prompt states \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This fits that criterion.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. All transitions between speakers are immediate (e.g., B ends at 0:01, A starts at 0:01; B ends at 0:08, A starts at 0:08). This indicates smooth and responsive turn-taking, contributing to a highly natural conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--585",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: How are you liking our new apartment?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: It's great! I cooked tonight and made some pasta.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: Oh nice, what did you [interrupt]\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but I just remembered we need to buy some kitchen supplies. Are we running low on anything?\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: We might need some more spices, but I was asking about what you cooked. Pasta! It was really good.\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B: I really want pizza tonight.\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker A: There's nothing wrong with that! Have you ever tried to make your own pizza from\n[00:25 - 00:27] Speaker B: No! Why do you ask?\n[00:28 - 00:35] Speaker A: Well, I like to make my own pizza. It is a really fun activity. I also found this awesome sauce recipe.\n[00:35 - 00:37] Speaker B: I'll have to give it a try!\n[00:37 - 00:39] Speaker A: Do you want some tips?\n[00:39 - 00:41] Speaker B: Sure, I'd love any tips I can get!\n[00:41 - 00:50] Speaker A: Okay, well first of all you have to have good quality ingredients. I recommend using freshly-made dough, and good quality cheese.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe logical consistency and topic coherence are mostly maintained throughout the dialogue.\n- Speaker B's first topic shift at [00:06 - 00:12] (to kitchen supplies) is explicitly acknowledged (\"Sorry to cut in\") and then Speaker A manages this gracefully by addressing it and redirecting back to the original topic ([00:12 - 00:19]). This demonstrates good conversational management.\n- The most notable point of inconsistency is Speaker B's turn at [00:19 - 00:21] (\"I really want pizza tonight.\"). This is an abrupt topic shift, completely disregarding Speaker A's effort to return to the pasta discussion. It doesn't logically follow from the previous turn. However, Speaker A adapts well, engaging with the new topic, and the conversation subsequently remains coherent and develops naturally around the \"pizza\" theme.\nDespite this one abrupt shift, the conversation recovers well and maintains coherence on the new topic. It's not a \"significant issue\" that leads to sustained confusion or a broken flow.\n\n**Logical Consistency:** Mostly consistent, with one abrupt shift by Speaker B that is then managed by Speaker A.\n**Topic Coherence:** Generally coherent, with one instance of an abrupt topic change by Speaker B that Speaker A successfully adapts to.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe interactional fluency is good, with no prolonged pauses or extended overlaps.\n- At [00:06 - 00:12], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. This overlap is brief (approximately 1 second, from 0:06 to 0:07), and Speaker B acknowledges it (\"Sorry to cut in\"), which makes it natural and polite.\n- At [00:25 - 00:27], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A again. This overlap is also brief (approximately 2 seconds, from 0:25 to 0:27).\nBoth instances are short, typical of natural, dynamic conversation, and do not constitute \"extended overlaps.\" There are no noticeable long pauses between turns. The pace feels natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--557",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I've been thinking about renovating my kitchen. What do you think?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Do you have an idea about what you want to change or\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I just got excited thinking about this! Have you considered how much it might cost?\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker B: I want to get rid of the wallpaper and laminate cabinets.\n[00:15 - 00:17] Speaker A: What's wrong with your current setup? Are\n[00:16 - 00:17] Speaker B: They're just a bit bland.\n[00:18 - 00:26] Speaker A: I see. By the way, you mentioned wanting to change the cabinets. Have you thought about the potential disruption during the renovation process?\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker B: Well, I don't know much about how they're constructed but I wouldn't change a thing.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Logical Consistency:** There's a major logical inconsistency from Speaker B. At [00:12 - 00:14], Speaker B states, \"I want to get rid of the wallpaper and laminate cabinets.\" However, at [00:27 - 00:31], Speaker B concludes with, \"I wouldn't change a thing.\" This directly contradicts their earlier stated desire for renovation, demonstrating a significant breakdown in logical consistency within Speaker B's own discourse.\n*   **Topic Coherence:** Speaker B's turn at [00:12 - 00:14] (\"I want to get rid of the wallpaper and laminate cabinets\") is a response to Speaker A's *initial* question about renovation, but it occurs immediately after Speaker A *interrupted* to ask about *cost* ([00:05 - 00:11]). This makes B's response momentarily off-topic from the immediate conversational thread, creating a slight lack of coherence. The most severe issue is Speaker B's final turn. Speaker A asks about \"potential disruption during the renovation process\" related to changing cabinets. Speaker B's response (\"I wouldn't change a thing\") completely sidesteps the question about disruption and contradicts the very premise of the conversation (renovating the kitchen). This indicates a significant failure in maintaining topic coherence. Speaker A, while sometimes shifting the specific angle (cost, disruption), generally stays within the overall topic of kitchen renovation.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:** There are significant issues, primarily from Speaker B, concerning logical consistency and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Extended Overlaps:**\n    *   At [00:05 - 00:11], Speaker A significantly overlaps and interrupts Speaker B's turn (\"Do you have an idea about what you want to change or\"). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which is an attempt to mitigate, but the interruption is nonetheless extended and cuts off Speaker B mid-sentence, disrupting the natural turn-taking flow.\n    *   At [00:16 - 00:17], Speaker B briefly overlaps Speaker A. This overlap is very short and common in natural conversation, as Speaker B begins to answer just as Speaker A finishes their question. This is considered acceptable and does not significantly harm fluency.\n*   **Long Pauses:** No long pauses between speaker turns are observed in the transcript.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:** There is one clear instance of a prolonged and disruptive overlap (Speaker A interrupting Speaker B). While brief overlaps are acceptable, this specific overlap significantly hinders the smooth interaction flow as it cuts off the other speaker and shifts the topic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--425",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: The doctor sent me over here to have my blood drawn.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Certainly, please have a seat and roll up your left sleeve.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker A: What is this test for?\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: Well, today your doctor wants us to check your white blood cell count to\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker A: Sorry, but what exactly does that tell him?\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: If it is elevated, you might have an infection. But as I was saying, we're checking your white blood cell count.\n[00:20 - 00:21] Speaker A: Will the blood test hurt?\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B: It is only a little pin stick. I am going to put a tourniquet on your arm to puff your veins up.\n[00:26 - 00:27] Speaker A: Ouch!\n[00:27 - 00:29] Speaker B: There we go! I got the blood that I needed.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining topic coherence throughout.\n- Speaker A initiates the purpose of the visit, and Speaker B's response immediately provides instructions.\n- Speaker A's subsequent question about the test's purpose is directly addressed by Speaker B.\n- Speaker A's interruption at [00:10 - 00:14] asking for clarification (\"what exactly does that tell him?\") is a highly relevant follow-up to Speaker B's partial explanation, demonstrating a natural patient curiosity. Speaker B handles this interruption gracefully by answering the clarifying question and then reiterating the original point.\n- Speaker A's question about pain (\"Will the blood test hurt?\") is a very common and relevant concern in this context.\n- Speaker B's reassuring answer and procedural information are perfectly relevant.\n- The \"Ouch!\" from Speaker A and Speaker B's concluding remarks (\"There we go! I got the blood that I needed.\") are natural and relevant reactions/statements to the unfolding procedure.\nThere are no instances of off-topic remarks or illogical responses. The conversation progresses naturally and efficiently towards its objective.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates strong interactional fluency.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns; responses are quick and natural, mimicking real-life conversation.\n- A brief overlap occurs at [00:10 - 00:14] where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. Speaker A starts speaking at 00:10 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:12. This is a 'brief' overlap, as Speaker A is interjecting for a clarification. This type of overlap is common and acceptable in natural conversation, especially when seeking immediate clarification or expressing eagerness. It does not disrupt the flow negatively or indicate a breakdown in communication; rather, Speaker B seamlessly incorporates the clarification request into their next turn.\n- There are no extended or disruptive overlaps. The conversation flows smoothly, indicating a good conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--430",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: How's school going?\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: It's good. We're learning about Karl Marx and his contributions to political theory.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker A: Do you believe in Marxism?\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B: I think it's an interesting idea that has influenced many political systems. It has\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but could you explain how Marxism has influenced modern political systems?\n[00:18 - 00:32] Speaker B: Sure, Marxism has influenced various political systems by introducing concepts of class struggle and the idea of a classless society. However, I also think that philosophy is very important because it can help to frame our\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker A: Speaking of philosophy, do you have a favorite philosopher or school of thought?\n[00:36 - 00:44] Speaker B: That's a great question! I really appreciate existentialism because it focuses on individual freedom and choice. You seem to be a very thoughtful person.\n[00:45 - 00:45] Speaker A: Thank you!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, demonstrating topic coherence and appropriate responses.\n-   Speaker B's initial response about learning Karl Marx is relevant to \"How's school going?\".\n-   Speaker A's follow-up \"Do you believe in Marxism?\" directly builds on Speaker B's statement.\n-   Speaker B's response about Marxism influencing political systems is a direct and nuanced answer.\n-   Speaker A's interruption, though an overlap, immediately asks for clarification on \"how Marxism has influenced modern political systems,\" directly referencing Speaker B's preceding words.\n-   Speaker B provides a relevant explanation of Marxism's influence and then makes a natural transition by introducing the importance of philosophy.\n-   Speaker A picks up on \"philosophy\" for a smooth and coherent topic shift (\"Speaking of philosophy...\"), which is a hallmark of good conversational flow.\n-   Speaker B's answer about existentialism is directly relevant to Speaker A's question.\n-   Speaker A's \"Thank you!\" is a relevant closing remark to Speaker B's compliment.\nOverall, the dialogue maintains logical consistency and topic coherence throughout, even with the slight topic shift facilitated by Speaker A.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n-   **Pauses:** All pauses between turns are brief (1 second) and natural, indicating no significant delays or awkward silences.\n-   **Overlaps:** There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    -   [00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A starts at 00:12 while Speaker B's previous turn ends at 00:13. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A explicitly apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which mitigates any negative impact and makes it feel natural for a dynamic conversation.\n    -   [00:30 - 00:35] Speaker A starts at 00:30 while Speaker B's previous turn ends at 00:32. This is a 2-second overlap. Speaker B was mid-sentence (\"frame our\"), but Speaker A's interruption uses Speaker B's last word \"philosophy\" to smoothly transition the topic, making the overlap feel purposeful and contributing to the flow rather than disrupting it.\n\nNeither of these overlaps are \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" as they do not lead to significant loss of information, confusion, or awkwardness. They reflect a natural, engaged conversation where participants are actively listening and contributing.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--251",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Good afternoon. I come here specially to pick up my tickets. I booked it last month. This is my reservation confirmation number\n[00:06 - 00:14] Speaker B: I'm terribly sorry to interrupt, but did you reconfirm your reservation recently? It's really important, especially for international flights.\n[00:14 - 00:22] Speaker A: Oh, I didn't realize that reconfirmation was necessary. I was planning to pick up the ticket today. So, what should I do now?\n[00:22 - 00:34] Speaker B: Unfortunately, since you didn't reconfirm, the reservation was canceled. You should have come to pick up your ticket three days ago, as any reservation without reconfirmation within 72 hours will be automatically released\n[00:33 - 00:40] Speaker A: Wait, so you're saying my booking is completely canceled? Is there any way to rebook or get on another flight?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance.\n*   **Speaker A (00:00-00:07)** clearly states their purpose and provides necessary information, establishing the context.\n*   **Speaker B (00:06-00:14)** immediately addresses the core issue (reconfirmation) that directly impacts Speaker A's request, demonstrating logical consistency and topic coherence. This is a pertinent question given the scenario.\n*   **Speaker A (00:14-00:22)** responds directly to Speaker B's reconfirmation query, expressing their lack of awareness and seeking guidance, which is a logical next step.\n*   **Speaker B (00:22-00:34)** provides a direct and coherent answer regarding the cancellation and the policy, clearly explaining the situation.\n*   **Speaker A (00:33-00:40)** reacts naturally to the negative news, seeking clarification and immediately asking for alternative solutions, which is a highly logical and coherent follow-up.\nAll turns build upon the previous one in a clear and understandable manner, maintaining a consistent flow of information related to the flight ticket issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates good fluency, with natural conversational dynamics.\n*   **Overlap at [00:06 - 00:07]:** Speaker B's utterance \"I'm terribly sorry to interrupt...\" overlaps for 1 second with Speaker A's final words. This is a very brief and explicitly acknowledged interruption, which is natural and polite when a speaker needs to interject with crucial information. It does not hinder comprehension or disrupt the flow.\n*   **Overlap at [00:33 - 00:34]:** Speaker A's \"Wait, so you're saying...\" overlaps for 1 second with Speaker B's explanation of the policy. This is a natural and brief interruption, indicative of Speaker A's reaction to the distressing news and their immediate need for clarification. It does not indicate a communication breakdown.\nThere are no extended overlaps that would impede understanding, nor are there any long pauses between turns. The conversation flows dynamically and realistically.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--72423",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: What happened?\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: I was running and then I felt this sharp pain in my leg and then I tripped and\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: Sharp pain? Did it happen suddenly, or was it something that built up over time?\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: It was sudden. It feels like my leg is going to break.\n[00:13 - 00:25] Speaker A: It sounds like you may have suffered a stress fracture. This is a common injury among runners, especially if you've been increasing your mileage or intensity too quickly. Let me take a look at your leg.\n[00:26 - 00:26] Speaker B: Ok.\n[00:27 - 00:36] Speaker A: It looks like you have a stress fracture in your tibia. I'm going to prescribe you some pain medication and recommend that you take a few weeks off from any high-impact\n[00:36 - 00:38] Speaker B: But I have a race coming up in a few weeks!\n[00:38 - 00:50] Speaker A: I understand how important that race is to you, but it's crucial that you rest so that your leg can heal properly. Otherwise, you risk making the injury worse and could end up with a more serious injury.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate high logical consistency and topic coherence.\n*   Speaker B's initial description of the injury is a direct and relevant answer to Speaker A's opening question.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up questions (\"Sharp pain? Did it happen suddenly...\") are highly relevant, seeking to clarify key details for diagnosis.\n*   Speaker B's answers (\"It was sudden. It feels like my leg is going to break.\") directly address Speaker A's questions and provide further symptomatic information.\n*   Speaker A's diagnosis and proposed action (\"It sounds like you may have suffered a stress fracture... Let me take a look...\") is a logical progression based on the symptoms described.\n*   Speaker B's \"Ok.\" is a direct and appropriate acknowledgement.\n*   Speaker A's detailed diagnosis and treatment plan (\"It looks like you have a stress fracture... prescribe you some pain medication and recommend that you take a few weeks off...\") flows directly from the physical examination.\n*   Speaker B's objection (\"But I have a race coming up...\") is a very natural and relevant reaction to the proposed rest period, expressing a conflict of interest.\n*   Speaker A's final response (\"I understand how important that race is to you, but it's crucial that you rest...\") directly addresses Speaker B's concern while reiterating the medical necessity, showing empathy and firm medical advice.\nThe conversation maintains a clear medical consultation topic throughout, with each turn building coherently on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap detected: Speaker A starts at [00:04] while Speaker B is still speaking until [00:05]. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A interjects with a clarifying question (\"Sharp pain?\") as soon as a key symptom is mentioned by Speaker B. This is a very common and natural occurrence in active conversation, especially in a professional context where the listener is trying to gather specific information. It does not disrupt the flow or appear rude; rather, it indicates active listening and immediate processing of information. It falls under the category of a \"brief overlap\" which is stated as acceptable.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no instances of long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between speakers are smooth and natural, with most pauses being 1 second or less, which are perfectly acceptable and contribute to the natural rhythm of conversation.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking contribute to a natural and efficient interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--57",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Excuse me, could you help me?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yes, what seems to be the problem?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: Well. I was wondering if anyone has turned in a passport?\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: I am afraid not. Have you lost your passport?\n[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker A: I think so. I can't find it anywhere in my hotel room and I remember the last place I used it yesterday was in this department store when\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: Oh, that's concerning. Have you checked with the hotel staff to see if it was left behind there by any chance?\n[00:26 - 00:34] Speaker A: Not yet, but I will. However, I'm quite certain I had it with me in the store. Where exactly did you use your passport in the store?\n[00:34 - 00:38] Speaker B: In the shoe department. I had to show it to pay for these shoes with my traveler's cheques.\n[00:38 - 00:43] Speaker A: Well, let me call the shoe department to see if they've found a passport. Maybe it\n[00:42 - 00:50] Speaker B: Wait, before you do that, could you tell me if you've checked your other belongings, like your bag or jacket pockets? Sometimes we overlook the obvious.\n[00:50 - 00:55] Speaker A: Good idea, I'll double-check them. But could you still call the shoe department after that?\n[00:56 - 00:59] Speaker B: Certainly. Sorry, your passport hasn't turned up there either.\n[00:59 - 01:00] Speaker A: Then what shall I do?\n[01:01 - 01:14] Speaker B: You can fill in this lost property report and I will keep my eye out for it. These kinds of things usually turn up eventually, but I suggest you contact your embassy and tell them about your situation, so they can issue you a new passport in case it doesn't show up.\n[01:15 - 01:17] Speaker A: You are right. Do you have a pen?\n[01:18 - 01:18] Speaker B: Here you are.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn is a direct and logical follow-up to the previous one, maintaining topic coherence throughout the conversation about the lost passport.\n\n*   **Initial Problem and Clarification:** Speaker A states the problem, and Speaker B immediately seeks clarification and offers initial information (\"Yes, what seems to be the problem?\" \"I am afraid not. Have you lost your passport?\").\n*   **Problem-Solving Steps:** Speaker A explains the situation, and Speaker B offers relevant suggestions (\"Have you checked with the hotel staff?\"). Speaker A then refines the search area, prompting Speaker B to specify (\"Where exactly did you use your passport in the store?\" -> \"In the shoe department.\").\n*   **Collaborative Search Strategy:** When Speaker A proposes calling the shoe department, Speaker B interjects with a logical, more immediate check (\"Wait, before you do that, could you tell me if you've checked your other belongings...\"). Speaker A acknowledges this good idea and reaffirms the subsequent plan.\n*   **Next Steps and Resolution:** When the immediate checks are exhausted, Speaker A asks for further guidance (\"Then what shall I do?\"), and Speaker B provides comprehensive, relevant advice (filling a report, contacting the embassy). The conversation concludes logically with Speaker A preparing to follow the advice.\n\nThere are no instances of misunderstandings, off-topic remarks, or illogical jumps in conversation. The advice given by Speaker B is practical and appropriate for the situation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits very good interactional fluency.\n\n*   **Turn-Taking Pace:** The turns are exchanged promptly and naturally, indicating a smooth flow without any noticeably long or awkward pauses.\n*   **Brief Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps identified:\n    *   `[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B:` overlaps with `[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker A:` for about 1 second. Speaker B interjects with \"Oh, that's concerning. Have you checked...\" while Speaker A is still describing the situation. This feels like a natural empathetic interjection and a proactive suggestion rather than a disruptive interruption.\n    *   `[00:42 - 00:50] Speaker B:` overlaps with `[00:38 - 00:43] Speaker A:` for about 1 second. Speaker B says \"Wait, before you do that...\" as Speaker A is suggesting calling the shoe department. Again, this is a brief, functional overlap where Speaker B jumps in to offer a more immediate, logical step in problem-solving.\n\nAccording to the instructions, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" Both instances here fall into the \"brief overlaps\" category. They are not extended, do not hinder understanding, and contribute to the dynamic and natural feel of the conversation, showing engaged participation from Speaker B. There are no prolonged overlaps or long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--16205",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I really enjoy math because it challenges me and I like finding solutions to complex problems,\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: That's great to hear, Aaradhya! Can you tell me more about why you find math enjoyable?\n[00:10 - 00:23] Speaker A: I guess it just feels good to be able to solve problems that at first glance might seem impossible. It's like a puzzle that I get to figure out, and when I finally do it's this moment of clarity, where\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker B: Satisfaction, right? I totally get that. It's like the harder the problem, the more rewarding the solution feels.\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker A: Exactly! And even if it takes me a while, it's still worth it in the end.\n[00:34 - 00:42] Speaker B: Absolutely. So, keep up the good work and don't be afraid to tackle tough problems. You might just surprise yourself with what you're capable of.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A introduces their enjoyment of math. Speaker B responds by acknowledging this and asking for elaboration, directly following up on Speaker A's initial statement. Speaker A then provides detailed reasons that directly answer Speaker B's question. Speaker B's interjection and subsequent statement (\"Satisfaction, right? I totally get that. It's like the harder the problem, the more rewarding the solution feels.\") directly relate to and expand on Speaker A's description of the feeling of solving problems. Speaker A's \"Exactly!\" confirms the shared understanding. Finally, Speaker B offers relevant encouragement related to Speaker A's passion. The topic remains consistently focused on the enjoyment and challenge of mathematics throughout the conversation, with each turn building coherently on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits excellent fluency. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural flow of conversation. There is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at [00:22 - 00:29], where Speaker B interjects \"Satisfaction, right?\" while Speaker A is still speaking. This overlap is short (Speaker B starts one second before Speaker A finishes) and appears to be a natural instance of anticipatory backchanneling or thought completion, common in fluent, engaged conversation rather than a disruptive interruption. It does not hinder understanding or suggest poor turn-taking. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--317",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Tyler residence.\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Is this Naomi?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker A: No, this is her sister, Nancy.\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker B: You sure sound like her on\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker A: Oh. Can I take a message?\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker B: Sure. Please tell her that Andy called.\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker A: Okay. I'll give her the message.\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker B: Thanks. By the way, what were you going to say earlier?\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker A: Oh, I was just going to say you sure sound like Naomi too.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence.\n- Speaker A's initial response \"Tyler residence\" is a standard phone greeting.\n- Speaker B's \"Is this Naomi?\" is a direct and relevant question to the person who answered.\n- Speaker A's \"No, this is her sister, Nancy\" is a clear and truthful answer.\n- Speaker B's \"You sure sound like her on\" is a natural observation, even if cut short.\n- Speaker A's \"Oh. Can I take a message?\" is a logical pivot after identifying herself and hearing B's initial observation, moving the conversation towards the purpose of the call.\n- Speaker B's \"Sure. Please tell her that Andy called\" is a direct and relevant response to the offer to take a message.\n- Speaker A's \"Okay. I'll give her the message\" is a relevant confirmation.\n- Speaker B's \"Thanks. By the way, what were you going to say earlier?\" is a very natural way to loop back to the earlier interrupted thought, showing good conversational awareness.\n- Speaker A's final response \"Oh, I was just going to say you sure sound like Naomi too\" perfectly completes the earlier exchange, demonstrating a shared observation and a humorous, natural ending.\nThe conversation flows very naturally and coherently, with no irrelevant or illogical turns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are no long pauses between turns. Most turns are taken immediately after the previous speaker finishes, or with very brief, natural pauses (e.g., 1 second between [00:01 - 00:02] and [00:02 - 00:05], and between [00:10 - 00:11] and [00:11 - 00:13]). These brief pauses are acceptable and contribute to natural pacing.\n- There are no extended overlaps. The only instance that *might* be considered an overlap is between [00:05 - 00:06] (Speaker B) and [00:06 - 00:08] (Speaker A), where Speaker B's sentence \"You sure sound like her on\" is cut short, and Speaker A immediately interjects with \"Oh. Can I take a message?\". This is a brief, natural interjection or a trailing off, common in spontaneous conversation, and explicitly stated as acceptable by the criteria (\"brief overlaps... are acceptable\"). It does not disrupt the flow or clarity of the conversation.\nThe dialogue sounds very natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--576",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I know a little about AI! Do you enjoy it?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Yeah, I find it very interesting!\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker A: Do you enjoy working with computers?\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sure! I got my bachelor's degree in computer science.\n[00:12 - 00:13] Speaker A: How do you like computer science?\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: I really like it! It's fun to work on problems that others wouldn't find challenging or\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker A: What kind of problems are you referring to? Are they more theoretical or practical in nature?\n[00:24 - 00:30] Speaker B: Both, actually. But speaking of problems, I'm interested in programming languages. Do you have any programming experience?\n[00:31 - 00:42] Speaker A: Not much. I took some classes in college, but I mainly do research. By the way, you mentioned you enjoy solving problems—what specific areas do you focus on in computer science?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n*   Speaker B's initial response \"Yeah, I find it very interesting!\" directly answers Speaker A's question about enjoying AI.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up \"Do you enjoy working with computers?\" logically extends the conversation from AI to the broader field.\n*   Speaker B's mention of a \"bachelor's degree in computer science\" leads perfectly to Speaker A's question \"How do you like computer science?\"\n*   Speaker B's elaboration on \"problems that others wouldn't find challenging\" prompts Speaker A to ask for clarification, \"What kind of problems are you referring to? Are they more theoretical or practical in nature?\" which B answers appropriately.\n*   Speaker B smoothly transitions the topic from \"problems\" to \"programming languages\" while still maintaining relevance by asking about Speaker A's programming experience.\n*   Finally, Speaker A answers the question about programming experience and then adeptly brings the conversation back to Speaker B's earlier point about \"solving problems,\" asking for more specific areas of focus. This demonstrates excellent recall and a desire to delve deeper into the conversation, maintaining coherence across turns and ensuring the conversation doesn't stray too far while allowing for natural exploration of related sub-topics.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n*   There are no instances of extended overlaps where speakers are talking over each other for prolonged periods.\n*   There are also no long pauses between speaker turns that disrupt the flow of conversation.\n*   The transitions between speakers are natural, often with very short, acceptable pauses (e.g., 0:05 to 0:06, 0:11 to 0:12, 0:23 to 0:24, 0:30 to 0:31).\n*   The only point of note is at [00:18], where Speaker B's sentence \"It's fun to work on problems that others wouldn't find challenging or\" is cut off precisely as Speaker A begins their turn. This suggests a very brief overlap or interruption, but it's minimal and does not significantly harm the flow or understanding of the conversation, falling under the \"brief overlaps... are acceptable\" criteria. It appears natural for an eager listener to interject for clarification.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--115051",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, my dog wasn't doing anything to you.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: I know, I was just walking by and it started barking at me.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: Well, sorry about that. He's just a little defensive when he\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker B: Do you think it's because he sensed something unusual? Sometimes dogs can be a bit more alert if they pick up on something different.\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: That could be it, but he's usually pretty good with people, so I don't know why he did that this time.\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker B: Maybe he could sense that I'm a stranger in the neighborhood?\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker A: Yeah, maybe. But like I said, sorry about the whole thing.\n[00:30 - 00:34] Speaker B: Don't worry about it, like I said, dogs bark, it's what they do.\n[00:34 - 00:36] Speaker A: Alright, well, thanks for understanding.\n[00:37 - 00:38] Speaker B: No problem, have a good day.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining a consistent topic about the dog's behavior and the interaction between the speakers. Speaker B's theories about the dog sensing something unusual or a stranger are directly related to Speaker A's initial apology and explanation. The conversation progresses naturally from conflict initiation (dog barking) to explanation, understanding, and resolution. There are no instances of topic drift or illogical responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no extended overlaps. The overlap between Speaker A's turn (ending 00:10) and Speaker B's turn (starting 00:09) is very brief (1 second) and indicates natural turn-taking or active listening rather than a disruptive interruption. Similarly, the overlap between Speaker B's turn (ending 00:34) and Speaker A's turn (starting 00:34) is immediate and natural, showing seamless conversational flow. There are also no long pauses; the gaps between turns are consistently 1 second or less, which are standard and acceptable in natural conversation, allowing for processing and turn-taking without feeling awkward or forced.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--497",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Then you were asked to write articles to explain the background of those country songs,\n[00:04 - 00:14] Speaker B: Oh, speaking of the background, did you ever consider focusing on a specific era of country music for your program? Like, maybe the classics from the '50s and '60s?\n[00:14 - 00:24] Speaker A: That's an interesting idea, but I actually meant to ask about the articles you wrote—did you eventually focus on a particular time period or style in those?\n[00:24 - 00:32] Speaker B: Yes, but soon I got tired of running to the library to find information. So I started buying country song books and building my own library.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good response relevance. Speaker A initiates a topic about writing articles on country song backgrounds. Speaker B, at first, makes a slight shift by asking about focusing on a specific era for a \"program\" while referencing \"background.\" This is a minor deviation but not entirely off-topic, as it still relates to country music history and categorization. Speaker A skillfully navigates this by acknowledging Speaker B's point (\"That's an interesting idea\") but gently redirecting the conversation back to the original topic of the \"articles\" and their focus. Speaker B then provides a relevant answer about the process of gathering information for those articles, directly addressing the implicit continuation of the \"articles\" topic. There are no logical inconsistencies, and the topic coherence is maintained through gentle redirection and relevant follow-up.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is one brief overlap between Speaker A (ends 00:05) and Speaker B (starts 00:04). This is a very short overlap (1 second) and is typical of natural, conversational turn-taking, indicating engagement rather than disruption. There are no extended overlaps. Furthermore, there are no long pauses between speaker turns; the conversation flows smoothly from one speaker to the next.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--567",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I really enjoyed Ken Burns' docuseries on the Vietnam War.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: That's cool. I never really got into Ken Burns' stuff.\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: He also did one about the Civil War. I still need to watch it, but it seems like it\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but I'm curious, how does he approach these historical topics? Is it more narrative or factual?\n[00:18 - 00:29] Speaker A: It's a mix of both, with a lot of personal stories and interviews. But I was also going to mention that there's a Ken Burns' series on the American West which covers\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker B: Oh, I think I've heard about that one! Is it as detailed as his other works?\n[00:32 - 00:36] Speaker A: Yes, it's pretty detailed and provides a lot of context about the era.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance.\n*   **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker A introduces Ken Burns, Speaker B responds with their experience, Speaker A mentions another work, Speaker B asks a relevant clarifying question, Speaker A answers and adds more, and Speaker B follows up with another relevant question. The conversation flows naturally and makes complete sense.\n*   **Topic Coherence:** The entire conversation remains tightly focused on Ken Burns and his documentary works. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant tangents. Speaker B's questions (\"how does he approach these historical topics?\" and \"Is it as detailed as his other works?\") are directly related to the Ken Burns documentaries Speaker A is discussing, showing engagement and a desire for more information on the coherent topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps identified ([00:11 - 00:18] Speaker B: \"Sorry to cut in...\" starting while A is speaking, and [00:28 - 00:31] Speaker B: \"Oh, I think I've heard...\" starting while A is speaking). However, both are very short (approx. 1 second where both are speaking) and do not constitute \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlaps. In the first instance, Speaker B explicitly apologizes for cutting in, which is a conversational repair mechanism indicating awareness and politeness, rather than a disruptive act. In the second instance, Speaker B's interjection is an expression of recognition and enthusiasm, which often naturally comes with slight overlap in engaged conversation. Neither overlap hinders understanding or disrupts the conversational flow; instead, they suggest active listening and high engagement.\n*   **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The turns are quick and responsive, indicating a smooth and natural conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--647",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm not sure what to do. Do you know anything about chemotherapy?\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: I had a cousin who used chemotherapy as treatment for her ovarian cancer. She's doing much better now!\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: I'm glad she's doing better! How did she feel during her chemotherapy sessions? Was\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: She said that it was hard at first, but that she felt better with each session.\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker A: Did she experience any side effects?\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B: She did, but the doctors warned her ahead of time so that she was ready.\n[00:25 - 00:27] Speaker A: Were there many side effects?\n[00:28 - 00:30] Speaker B: There were, but they all cleared up after a few days.\n[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker A: Did she go through any hair loss or weight changes during\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker B: She lost a lot of hair, but she grew it back! She did gain a little weight, but it went away again.\n[00:38 - 00:43] Speaker A: That sounds tough. What did her doctors do to keep her comfortable?\n[00:43 - 00:46] Speaker B: They gave her painkillers, and she was really comfortable during treatment.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct, relevant answers to Speaker A's questions about chemotherapy, drawing on a personal anecdote about their cousin. The conversation logically progresses from general inquiries about chemotherapy to specific details like side effects, comfort measures, and recovery. Each turn builds on the previous one, maintaining topic coherence throughout. There are no instances of irrelevant information, off-topic tangents, or logical inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two instances of brief overlaps: `[00:14 - 00:18]` Speaker B overlaps with `[00:10 - 00:15]` Speaker A by 1 second, and `[00:33 - 00:38]` Speaker B overlaps with `[00:31 - 00:34]` Speaker A by 1 second. These are very short and natural overlaps, common in fluid conversation, indicating an engaged and responsive exchange rather than disruptive interruptions. There is one brief pause of 1 second between `[00:27] Speaker A` and `[00:28] Speaker B`, which is also a natural conversational rhythm and not a prolonged silence. All other turns follow immediately or with negligible pauses, contributing to a smooth and natural flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--115",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Please tell us the exact time when the big fire broke out.\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: The exact time? Let me think. You know, it happened at around 9:45\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but it's really important for us to know the specific time. Can you recall exactly when it started?\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: Oh, I remember. It was about 10 o'clock. When I was about to go to bed, suddenly I heard help outside.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:** Speaker A repeatedly asks for the \"exact\" or \"specific\" time of the fire. Speaker B's first response provides an approximate time (\"around 9:45\"). When pressed again for a \"specific time,\" Speaker B provides *another* approximate time (\"about 10 o'clock\") that *contradicts* their previous approximate time. This internal inconsistency in Speaker B's answers regarding the crucial piece of information (the time) represents a significant issue in logical consistency and topic coherence. While memory recall can be difficult, providing two different approximate times when an exact time is explicitly requested and re-requested shows a lack of consistency in the information provided, hindering the primary goal of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:** There is a brief overlap between Speaker B's first turn (ending at 00:07) and Speaker A's second turn (starting at 00:06), lasting approximately 1 second. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the overlap feel natural and intentional for the purpose of immediate clarification. There are no long pauses between turns. The interaction flows naturally despite the brief, acknowledged overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--381",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: When did you become interested in collecting stamps?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Oh, when I was about ten I remember\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: Ten years old? So you have loved it for 9 years.\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Yeah, it's really an exciting hobby. You know, the first postage stamps were issued in Britain in 1840.\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker A: Really? I didn't know that. What's on the first postage [interrupt]\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B: Sorry, just curious—how did you even get started with stamp collecting at such a young age?\n[00:23 - 00:32] Speaker A: Oh, my grandfather gave me a small collection as a gift. But, I was just about to tell you, the first postage stamps had a picture of Queen Victoria on them.\n[00:33 - 00:35] Speaker B: Oh, they both bear a picture of Queen Victoria, don't they?\n[00:36 - 00:41] Speaker A: Yes, I wish I had the originals, then I would be a wealthy man instead of a poor stamp collector.\n[00:42 - 00:46] Speaker B: But I believe collecting stamps gives you much pleasure which not all wealthy men can enjoy.\n[00:47 - 00:48] Speaker A: Yes, I do agree.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n- Speaker B's initial response about being ten years old directly answers Speaker A's question about when they became interested in stamps.\n- Speaker A's follow-up calculation (\"So you have loved it for 9 years\") is a logical deduction based on B's answer.\n- Speaker B introduces a fact about the first postage stamps, which is coherent with the topic of stamp collecting.\n- Speaker A's reaction and attempt to ask a follow-up question (\"Really? I didn't know that. What's on the first postage...\") are directly related to B's statement.\n- Speaker B's interruption, while a minor disfluency in flow (addressed in fluency analysis), is relevant to the broader topic of how one started collecting stamps, albeit shifting the focus from the history of stamps to Speaker A's personal experience.\n- Crucially, Speaker A handles this gracefully by first answering B's question and then returning to their interrupted thought about the first postage stamp's design, demonstrating excellent topic management and logical coherence.\n- Subsequent turns are all logically connected: Speaker B's question about Queen Victoria's picture, Speaker A's witty remark about wealth, and Speaker B's philosophical counterpoint.\nOverall, the conversation maintains a clear logical flow and stays on topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction generally demonstrates good fluency with natural turn-taking.\n- **Pauses:** There are no prolonged pauses. Most gaps between turns are 1 second, which is natural for conversation.\n- **Overlaps:**\n    - At [00:04 - 00:08], Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing their sentence. This is a very brief overlap (approximately 1 second) and appears to be an eager, cooperative follow-up, which is acceptable as per the criteria (\"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\").\n    - At [00:18 - 00:23], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A mid-sentence, explicitly marked by `[interrupt]` and B's immediate apology (\"Sorry, just curious—\"). While the duration of the overlap itself (1 second) is brief, it represents an \"overlapping turn\" where one speaker takes the floor from another. The criteria state \"overlapping turns are harmful.\" However, Speaker B immediately apologizes, acknowledging the interruption, and Speaker A gracefully manages the interruption by answering B's question and then returning to their original point. This skillful recovery prevents the interruption from becoming a \"significant issue\" that severely disrupts comprehension or flow. It's a momentary disfluency that is well-handled rather than a persistent problem.\nConsidering the prompt specifies that \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful,\" this single instance of an overlapping turn, while not prolonged, is present. However, its immediate mitigation and effective resolution by the speakers mean it does not represent a *significant* issue in overall interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--356",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Thank you for bringing me here. What shall we try first?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but I just noticed they have a special on the menu today. Should we check that out first?\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: Oh, good idea! But I was about to suggest the steamed prawns. What do you think?\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker B: Really? I'd rather have the chicken feet, to be honest.\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker A: Ok then, let's get the chicken feet.\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker B: How about drinks? Would you like beer or maybe something\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker A: Actually, I was thinking about wine. But what were you going to suggest?\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker B: I was going to say wine too. Let's order a bottle of the house red then.\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker A: Ok, a bottle of the house red, please!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement, maintaining logical consistency and topic coherence throughout the conversation.\n- Speaker A's initial question \"What shall we try first?\" sets the context.\n- Speaker B's suggestion about the \"special\" is a direct response to this, albeit with a slight overlap.\n- Speaker A then acknowledges B's idea (\"Oh, good idea!\") before introducing their own suggestion of \"steamed prawns,\" indicating active listening and topic continuity.\n- Speaker B's \"I'd rather have the chicken feet\" directly responds to A's suggestion and preference.\n- Speaker A's \"Ok then, let's get the chicken feet\" shows agreement and moves the decision forward.\n- The transition to \"How about drinks?\" from Speaker B is a natural progression in a dining context, maintaining overall coherence.\n- Speaker A's \"Actually, I was thinking about wine. But what were you going to suggest?\" shows they are engaged, offer their thought, and invite B to complete theirs.\n- Speaker B's \"I was going to say wine too\" aligns and proposes a specific order.\n- Speaker A's final \"Ok, a bottle of the house red, please!\" confirms the decision.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses, sudden topic shifts, or misunderstandings. The conversation flows logically and cooperatively towards the goal of ordering food and drinks.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits excellent interactional fluency.\n- **Overlaps:** There are a few brief overlaps:\n    - `[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B:` starts at 0:02 while `[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A:` ends at 0:03. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly says \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating awareness and making it a natural, brief interruption rather than a disruptive one.\n    - `[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker A:` starts at 0:17 as `[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker B:` ends at 0:17. This is effectively a 0-second overlap, indicating smooth, rapid turn-taking.\n    - `[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker A:` starts at 0:22 while `[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker B:` ends at 0:23. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B's phrasing \"or maybe something\" sounds like it was trailing off, allowing A to naturally interject their thought, which is common in fluid conversation.\nAll detected overlaps are brief (0-1 second) and appear to be natural instances of active listening, eager participation, or smooth turn-taking, rather than prolonged or harmful interruptions.\n- **Pauses:** The pauses between speaker turns are consistently short (0-1 second), indicating a natural and steady conversational rhythm:\n    - 0:07 (B ends) to 0:08 (A starts) = 1 second.\n    - 0:13 (A ends) to 0:14 (B starts) = 1 second.\n    - 0:19 (A ends) to 0:20 (B starts) = 1 second.\n    - 0:27 (A ends) to 0:27 (B starts) = 0 seconds.\n    - 0:31 (B ends) to 0:31 (A starts) = 0 seconds.\nThese short pauses contribute to a dynamic and engaging interaction. There are no long, awkward silences that would disrupt the flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--424",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: I'm hungry.\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: You already ate.\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker A: It wasn't enough, because I'm hungry and I\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but are you sure there's nothing left from dinner?\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: There's nothing left from dinner. I'm going to get a snack.\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker B: What kind of snack are you going to make?\n[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker A: I don't know. You can always make a sandwich.\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B: I don't know what kind of sandwich I want.\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker A: Just make yourself a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.\n[00:25 - 00:26] Speaker B: I may just do that.\n[00:26 - 00:27] Speaker A: Go right ahead.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A expresses hunger, and Speaker B immediately addresses it with a relevant counterpoint (\"You already ate.\"). Speaker A explains their continued hunger (\"It wasn't enough\"), maintaining the logical thread. Speaker B's interruption is a direct, relevant question seeking clarification on the food situation (\"are you sure there's nothing left from dinner?\"). Speaker A's response (\"There's nothing left from dinner. I'm going to get a snack.\") directly answers the question and introduces the next logical step.\n\nThe conversation seamlessly transitions to snack ideas, with Speaker B asking about the type of snack and Speaker A providing a suggestion. The back-and-forth about sandwiches (Speaker B not knowing what kind, Speaker A suggesting PB&J) is perfectly logical and coherent within the established topic. The final turns (\"I may just do that,\" \"Go right ahead\") provide a natural and relevant conclusion to the discussion about the snack choice. Every turn builds on the previous one, and the topic remains consistent from start to finish.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction largely demonstrates good fluency, but there is one significant extended overlap.\n\nThe overlap at [00:02 - 00:05] Speaker A and [00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B is a clear extended overlap. Speaker A is still speaking (\"It wasn't enough, because I'm hungry and I\") when Speaker B interjects (\"Sorry to interrupt, but are you sure there's nothing left from dinner?\"). This overlap is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating it was an interruption rather than a natural turn-taking cue. While brief overlaps are acceptable, this one lasts for a noticeable duration, with Speaker B cutting off Speaker A's sentence.\n\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns. The turns follow each other relatively quickly, indicative of a natural, flowing conversation. However, the one extended overlap does detract slightly from perfect interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--131078",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm incredibly strong and can lift twice my own body weight. I've run marathons and have never been beaten in a race, especially\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: Really? I find that hard to believe. What kind of training do you do to maintain that level of strength and endurance?\n[00:14 - 00:23] Speaker A: It's true. I'm just naturally gifted when it comes to physical strength and endurance. But I do train regularly, focusing on both strength conditioning\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker B: I bet your diet plays a big role too. Do you follow any specific nutrition plan to support your training?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates good response relevance and logical consistency.\n*   **Speaker B's first turn (00:07 - 00:13):** Speaker A makes a very strong, almost unbelievable claim about their physical abilities. Speaker B's response, \"Really? I find that hard to believe. What kind of training do you do to maintain that level of strength and endurance?\", is a highly relevant and logical reaction. It expresses appropriate skepticism and immediately follows up with a direct question aimed at understanding the basis of A's claims.\n*   **Speaker A's second turn (00:14 - 00:23):** Speaker A responds directly to B's skepticism (\"It's true. I'm just naturally gifted...\") and then begins to address the question about training (\"But I do train regularly, focusing on both strength conditioning\"). Although the sentence is cut off, the initial response is on-topic and consistent with the previous turn.\n*   **Speaker B's second turn (00:22 - 00:28):** Speaker B's follow-up, \"I bet your diet plays a big role too. Do you follow any specific nutrition plan to support your training?\", is a natural and logical extension of the conversation about physical performance and training. Diet is intrinsically linked to strength and endurance, making this a highly coherent next question.\n\nThe topic coherence is maintained throughout the exchange, with each speaker building logically on the previous turn.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency with only brief, natural overlaps and short pauses.\n*   **Overlap at [00:07 - 00:08]:** Speaker B starts speaking at 00:07 while Speaker A finishes at 00:08. This is a 1-second overlap. This is a brief overlap, common in natural conversation, indicating active listening and anticipatory turn-taking rather than interruption.\n*   **Pause at [00:13 - 00:14]:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn ending at 00:13 and Speaker A's turn beginning at 00:14. This is a small, acceptable pause.\n*   **Overlap at [00:22 - 00:23]:** Speaker B starts speaking at 00:22 while Speaker A finishes at 00:23. This is another 1-second overlap. Similar to the first, this is brief and natural, often occurring when a speaker anticipates the end of another's thought.\n\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would hinder the flow of the conversation. The timing of turns is appropriate and contributes to a natural-sounding interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--139997",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Well, I wanted to talk to you about our project for class. Do you have a minute?\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker B: Sure, what's on your mind?\n[00:06 - 00:19] Speaker A: I was thinking that maybe we could change the focus of our project a bit. Instead of just researching ancient Greece, maybe we could focus on a specific event in Greek history, like the Trojan Horse and\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B: The Trojan War? That actually sounds more engaging. What made you think of that?\n[00:23 - 00:36] Speaker A: Well, I was reading about the Trojan War in my mythology book and I thought it would be really interesting to learn more about it. Plus, it's such a famous story that everyone knows about, so it would be easier to\n[00:35 - 00:45] Speaker B: Easy to find information on, right? Yeah, that's true. And there's definitely a lot of material out there on the Trojan War. Okay, let's do it! Thanks for suggesting it!\n[00:46 - 00:48] Speaker A: No problem, thank you for agreeing to it!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building upon the shared topic of their class project.\n*   Speaker A initiates the conversation about the project, and Speaker B promptly asks for clarification (\"what's on your mind?\").\n*   Speaker A proposes a change, and Speaker B immediately grasps the idea, clarifies it (\"The Trojan War?\"), and asks a relevant follow-up question (\"What made you think of that?\").\n*   Speaker A provides clear reasons, and Speaker B accurately anticipates and completes Speaker A's thought (\"Easy to find information on, right?\") before expressing full agreement and gratitude.\n*   The conversation remains entirely focused on the project's new direction without any digressions or non-sequiturs. The logical consistency and topic coherence are consistently high.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is also excellent. There are no long pauses that would disrupt the flow of the conversation. The brief overlaps present are characteristic of natural, engaged dialogue and do not hinder comprehension or indicate an issue.\n*   At [00:19], Speaker B begins speaking precisely as Speaker A finishes, completing Speaker A's thought (\"Trojan Horse and [Trojan War?]\"). This is a very natural and collaborative form of turn-taking, showing active listening and anticipation, rather than an interruption.\n*   At [00:35], Speaker B starts speaking one second before Speaker A finishes, again completing Speaker A's thought (\"easier to [find information on]\"). This brief overlap further enhances the sense of a highly engaged and aligned conversation, where speakers are tracking each other's ideas closely.\nThese are not \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns\" as described in the criteria that would be harmful; instead, they are examples of highly fluent and natural conversational interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--37243",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Of course! Anything for my best friend. So, what's been on your\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker B: Actually, before I go into that, I just want to say how grateful I am to have you in my life. I don't know what I'd do without your support.\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker A: You're the best, Adamari. But really, what's been bothering you?\n[00:15 - 00:30] Speaker B: Well, I just found out that my parents are getting divorced and it's really upsetting me. They've been fighting a lot lately and it's just... I don't know, really hard to see them like that. Plus, now I have to choose which one of them I want to live with and it's just so hard because I love them both so much.\n[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker A: Oh Adamari, I'm so sorry! That must be really tough for you to deal with. Have you\n[00:35 - 00:39] Speaker B: I haven't figured that out yet... It's like no matter what I choose, someone gets hurt.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates by asking what's bothering Speaker B, who then appropriately expresses gratitude before revealing the core issue (parents' divorce and the difficult choice of where to live). Speaker A's responses are empathetic and directly acknowledge Speaker B's distress (\"I'm so sorry! That must be really tough for you to deal with.\"). Speaker B's final statement directly addresses the likely implicit question from Speaker A's unfinished sentence (\"Have you...\") by stating they haven't figured it out yet and elaborating on the emotional difficulty. The conversation flows naturally, with each turn building coherently on the previous one, maintaining a clear topic and emotional tone.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural. There are two brief overlaps detected:\n1.  **[00:03 - 00:04]**: Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap. This type of overlap is common in natural conversation, where a speaker might interject to express gratitude quickly before the other speaker finishes their thought, or to signal their readiness to speak. It does not appear disruptive or extended.\n2.  **[00:35 - 00:36]**: Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is in the middle of a question. This is a 1-second overlap. This also appears natural, as Speaker B seems to anticipate Speaker A's question (\"Have you...\") and responds immediately.\n\nThe pauses between turns are also brief (e.g., 1 second between [00:10] and [00:11], and between [00:14] and [00:15]). These are not \"long pauses\" and contribute to a realistic conversational rhythm. There are no prolonged pauses or extended overlaps that would hinder the flow of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--69143",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, boss. What's up?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Not much. Just getting some work done before\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but I wanted to ask if there's anything specific you need me to wrap up before I finish my shift?\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: Just make sure the report is submitted before you leave. You've been working hard lately.\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker A: Thanks. I just love what I do, so it doesn't feel like work when you're\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: That's great to hear. By the way, have you thought about taking on more responsibilities? I think you're ready for the next step.\n[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker A: That sounds exciting. I'm definitely open to it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates a work-related inquiry to their \"boss,\" which Speaker B directly addresses. The conversation flows naturally from a general greeting to a specific work task, then to a compliment, which Speaker A acknowledges and expands upon. Speaker B then logically builds on Speaker A's enthusiasm for work to offer a potential career advancement. Speaker A's final response is a direct and positive reply to this offer. All turns are relevant to the preceding statements and contribute to the overall progression of the conversation about work and career.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two instances of brief overlaps, one where Speaker A cuts in to ask a question and apologizes (`[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in...`), and another where Speaker B interjects as Speaker A is expressing their passion for work (`[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: That's great to hear. By the way...`). Both overlaps are short (approximately 1 second each) and are characteristic of natural, dynamic conversation. Speaker A's apology for cutting in further highlights the naturalness of the interaction. There are no prolonged pauses or harmful extended overlaps. The conversational flow is smooth and natural, resembling real-life interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--32538",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: \"Okay, so first you're going to want to put your foot on the brake and then start the engine. Once\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: \"Sorry, before I start the car, should I adjust the mirrors or seat position? I want to make sure I'm comfortable before driving.\"\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker A: \"Good point. Yes, definitely adjust the mirrors and seat first. Once you're ready, put your foot on the brake and start the car.\"\n[00:19 - 00:20] Speaker B: \"Got it.\"\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker A: \"Good. Now, once the car is started, you're going to slowly release the brake and give the gas a little bit of pressure, just\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker B: \"Wait, how much pressure should I apply to the gas? I don't want to accelerate too quickly.\"\n[00:32 - 00:40] Speaker A: \"Just a light press, enough to get the car moving smoothly. You're doing great. Now just keep doing that until we get up to speed.\"",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B's questions (e.g., about adjusting mirrors, applying gas pressure) are pre-emptive or clarifying queries that naturally arise in a driving instruction scenario. Speaker A's responses directly address these questions, incorporating them into the instructions or providing necessary clarifications. For instance, Speaker A acknowledges Speaker B's \"Good point\" about mirrors and adjusts the sequence of instructions.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The conversation consistently stays on the topic of learning to start and move a car. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant detours. Speaker B's questions, while interjecting, are always in service of understanding the core topic.\n3.  **Direct Addressing:** Speaker A consistently answers Speaker B's specific questions directly and clearly. Speaker B's acknowledgements (\"Got it\") show comprehension. This indicates a highly relevant and effective exchange of information.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There are two instances of overlaps:\n    *   [00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B starts at 0:04 while Speaker A finishes at 0:05, resulting in a 1-second overlap.\n    *   [00:27 - 00:32] Speaker B starts at 0:27 while Speaker A finishes at 0:28, resulting in a 1-second overlap.\n    According to the prompt, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" A 1-second overlap, especially in an instructional context where the learner is actively engaged and asking clarifying questions, falls under \"brief overlaps.\" These are not \"prolonged\" and do not disrupt the flow; rather, they indicate active listening and immediate engagement from Speaker B. They are functional overlaps, not indicative of poor turn-taking.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The turn-taking is prompt and responsive throughout the dialogue, indicating a natural and fluid conversation rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--27973",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Good to meet you, Shaun. Thanks for coming over!\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: No problem, Shana. I'm glad to be here.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker A: So, what brings you by today?\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: Oh, just wanted to say hi and see how you're holding up\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: Actually, I was meaning to ask you something—how's your new project going?\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker B: It's going well, thanks! But I was going to say, I wanted to see how you're doing too.\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker A: I'm doing great! Just enjoying the nice weather we've been having lately. Have you been able to get out and enjoy it much?\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker B: Yeah, I've been getting out a lot more lately. It's really nice to be able to get some fresh air and clear my\n[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker A: Speaking of fresh air, have you tried that new park that just opened up?\n[00:37 - 00:41] Speaker B: Not yet, but I've heard good things about it. Maybe I'll check it out this weekend.\n[00:42 - 00:47] Speaker A: You definitely should. Well, I should probably get going. It was nice seeing you, Shana.\n[00:47 - 00:49] Speaker B: You too, Shaun. Take care!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and topic coherence.\n- The initial greetings and inquiries are appropriate and directly answered.\n- Speaker A's pivot to \"how's your new project going?\" after Speaker B states their reason for visiting is a common and natural conversational shift, showing a desire for reciprocal inquiry.\n- Speaker B responds to the project question and then seamlessly reintroduces their original intent (\"I wanted to see how you're doing too\"), maintaining logical consistency with their earlier statement.\n- The transition from discussing weather to \"fresh air\" and then to a \"new park\" by Speaker A is very coherent and demonstrates excellent topic development.\n- The closing remarks are standard and logical for ending a social interaction.\nOverall, the responses are consistently appropriate, build logically on previous turns, and maintain a clear, evolving topic thread.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, reflecting a natural and dynamic conversation.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are quick and smooth.\n- There are two instances of brief overlap:\n    - At [00:10 - 00:15], Speaker A begins \"Actually, I was meaning to ask you something—how's your new project going?\" while Speaker B is finishing \"how you're holding up\" [00:08 - 00:11]. This overlap is minimal (about 1 second) and common in natural speech, where one speaker anticipates the end of another's turn or interjects slightly. It does not disrupt the flow.\n    - At [00:32 - 00:37], Speaker A says \"Speaking of fresh air, have you tried that new park that just opened up?\" while Speaker B is finishing \"clear my\" [00:27 - 00:33]. This overlap is also very brief (about 1 second) and functions as a seamless transition, with Speaker A picking up on a keyword (\"fresh air\") to introduce a related topic. This type of overlap enhances naturalness rather than detracting from it.\nThese overlaps are not prolonged or harmful; instead, they contribute to the organic rhythm of the conversation, indicating active listening and engagement.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--27953",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi! I'm glad you could meet me here.\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Hi! Thanks for inviting me. This place looks great.\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Yeah, I love it here. The food is amazing and the atmosphere is perfect for a date.\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker B: Definitely. So, tell me about yourself Terrion.\n[00:16 - 00:31] Speaker A: Well, let's see...I grew up in a small town in Maine and moved to Boston for college. I'm currently working as an accountant, but my real passion is music. I play the guitar and sing in a band called The Blue Moonshine and we've\n[00:30 - 00:34] Speaker B: Oh, The Blue Moonshine? That's such a cool name! How did you guys come up with it?\n[00:35 - 00:46] Speaker A: Thanks! We were actually just brainstorming one night, and we wanted something that captured our vibe—a mix of classic and modern sounds. But I was saying, I play the guitar and sing in the band.\n[00:46 - 00:52] Speaker B: That sounds really cool! I'm a big fan of music myself. What kind of music does your band play?\n[00:53 - 01:03] Speaker A: We mostly play rock and roll, but we mix in some blues and country influences as well. Our goal is to make people dance and have a good time when they come to\n[01:02 - 01:06] Speaker B: Speaking of having a good time, do you guys ever play any covers, or is it all original music?\n[01:07 - 01:15] Speaker A: We do a mix of both! We love putting our own spin on classic covers, but we also have a lot of original songs that we're really proud of.\n[01:16 - 01:21] Speaker B: That sounds like so much fun! I would love to see you guys perform sometime. When is your next show?\n[01:22 - 01:27] Speaker A: We're actually playing at a club down the street from here tomorrow night. Would you like to come?\n[01:27 - 01:29] Speaker B: I would love to! Thank you for inviting me.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance Evaluation:**\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence throughout the conversation.\n- Speaker B's initial responses (e.g., \"Thanks for inviting me. This place looks great.\") directly acknowledge Speaker A's opening.\n- The transition to \"tell me about yourself\" is a natural progression for a date.\n- Speaker A's detailed answer about their background and passion for music is highly relevant to the question.\n- Speaker B's immediate follow-up on \"The Blue Moonshine\" shows active listening and interest, maintaining the topic.\n- Subsequent questions about the band's music genre, covers vs. originals, and next show dates are all directly related to the shared topic of music and the band, demonstrating logical consistency.\n- Speaker A's invitation at the end is a natural outcome of B's expressed interest in seeing the band perform.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses, topic shifts that are jarring, or logical inconsistencies. The conversation flows very naturally and coherently.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency Evaluation:**\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n- **Pauses:** There are no instances of long or awkward pauses between speaker turns. The conversation moves at a natural pace.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps:\n    - [00:30 - 00:34] Speaker B starts while Speaker A is still speaking (at 00:31). This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B's interjection \"Oh, The Blue Moonshine? That's such a cool name!\" is an enthusiastic, anticipatory response, showing high engagement rather than a disruptive interruption. Speaker A naturally picks up their thought afterwards (\"But I was saying...\").\n    - [01:02 - 01:06] Speaker B starts while Speaker A is still speaking (at 01:03). This is also a 1-second overlap. Speaker B uses the phrase \"Speaking of having a good time,\" which directly links to Speaker A's previous statement (\"make people dance and have a good time\"), making it a facilitative and natural overlap that helps transition the conversation smoothly.\nAs per the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" Both overlaps are brief (1 second) and appear to be instances of enthusiastic or facilitative overlapping, which enhances the naturalness and engagement of the conversation rather than hindering it. They do not lead to prolonged overlapping turns or communication breakdown.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--531",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hello! How are you doing?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Hi, I'm doing great! Is there anything interesting going on in your life?\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker A: Hmm... so much, but I feel like I have trouble keeping track of it all.\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker B: What is an interesting thing that you're doing?\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker A: One of my favorite things to do is to wander around my neighborhood and find new things to explore, like\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but have you discovered any hidden gems or unique spots recently?\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: Yes, actually, I found a cozy little café that I never noticed before. Is there anything that you want to do soon?\n[00:31 - 00:39] Speaker B: I would love to learn more about chemistry, but I think I'm going to have to wait until I can afford to take classes. Do you have any hobbies?\n[00:39 - 00:46] Speaker A: I enjoy gardening, but there is not really much to do now that it is winter. What are your thoughts on indoor gardening\n[00:46 - 00:51] Speaker B: I think gardening is great! By the way, you mentioned chemistry—what specifically interests you about it?\n[00:51 - 00:59] Speaker A: Oh, I find the reactions and the way different substances interact fascinating. But back to your question, what are your thoughts on science?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains good logical consistency and topic coherence. Speakers mostly respond directly to the previous turn's content.\n*   Speaker B's initial question about interesting things in Speaker A's life is followed up logically.\n*   Speaker B's interruption about \"hidden gems\" is relevant to Speaker A's topic of exploring the neighborhood.\n*   The conversation then shifts to new topics with \"Is there anything that you want to do soon?\" (Speaker A) and \"Do you have any hobbies?\" (Speaker B), which are common and acceptable conversational pivots.\n*   However, there are two points where topic coherence slightly falters:\n    1.  At `[00:46 - 00:51]`, Speaker B acknowledges Speaker A's gardening hobby but completely ignores Speaker A's direct question \"What are your thoughts on indoor gardening?\" to jump back to a previous topic (chemistry) that Speaker B introduced. This feels a bit forced and not fully responsive.\n    2.  At `[00:51 - 00:59]`, Speaker A correctly answers Speaker B's question about chemistry but then uses the transition \"But back to your question\" to ask a very broad question \"what are your thoughts on science?\". This phrase is misapplied because B's immediate question was specific to chemistry, not a general question about science. While related, it's a slightly awkward and overly generalized pivot that doesn't logically flow from B's specific query.\nDespite these minor issues, the responses are never nonsensical or completely off-topic. The dialogue is largely understandable and coherent. The issues are minor conversational missteps rather than \"significant issues.\"\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap at `[00:19 - 00:20]` where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B immediately acknowledges and apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which makes it a natural and acceptable brief overlap, not an \"extended\" or harmful one.\n*   **Pauses:** There are only very brief pauses (1 second) between some turns (`[00:01]-[00:02]`, `[00:13]-[00:14]`, `[00:23]-[00:24]`). These are small and entirely natural, contributing to a flowing conversation rather than hindering it. There are no \"long pauses\" detected.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 5
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--131467",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: You know what really grinds my gears?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: What?\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker A: When people are just plain rude. I can't stand it when people are disrespectful and don't have any sense of\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but do you think it's getting worse lately? It feels like people are just more self-centered now.\n[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker A: Yeah, it does seem like that. And it drives me crazy! I mean, how hard is it to be polite and show some consideration for\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker B: Especially when it's something so basic, like just saying \"please\" or \"thank you.\" It's not like it takes that much effort.\n[00:29 - 00:36] Speaker A: Exactly! And yet, there are still so many people out there who just don't bother. They act like the world owes them something.\n[00:36 - 00:37] Speaker B: Yeah...",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building upon the established topic of rudeness and lack of consideration.\n- Speaker A initiates the topic clearly.\n- Speaker B's immediate \"What?\" is a direct and relevant prompt.\n- Speaker A defines their grievance, and Speaker B's \"Sorry to jump in, but do you think it's getting worse lately?\" is highly coherent, expanding on A's initial point about rudeness by questioning its prevalence.\n- Speaker A agrees with B's observation and reiterates their frustration.\n- Speaker B's next interjection about \"please\" or \"thank you\" provides concrete examples that logically extend Speaker A's point about basic politeness and consideration.\n- Speaker A's \"Exactly!\" confirms agreement and further elaborates on the entitlement theme.\n- Speaker B's final \"Yeah...\" is a common backchannel, indicating active listening and agreement.\nThe topic coherence is maintained throughout, with a clear flow from general annoyance to specific examples and broader societal observations.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency in this dialogue is very good. There are no long pauses that disrupt the flow of conversation. The turns are exchanged promptly.\nThere are two instances of overlap:\n1.  **[00:09 - 00:10] Speaker A: ...have any sense of** and **[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but do you think...**\n    This is a brief overlap. Speaker B explicitly apologizes for interrupting (\"Sorry to jump in\"), indicating awareness, and their contribution is highly relevant and immediately continues the conversation's theme. This is a common and often positive sign of engaged, eager conversation, rather than a disruptive, extended overlap.\n2.  **[00:22 - 00:23] Speaker A: ...consideration for** and **[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker B: Especially when it's something so basic...**\n    This is another brief overlap. Speaker B's interjection here directly elaborates on Speaker A's preceding point, providing specific examples. It demonstrates active listening and a collaborative effort to build on the discussion. It does not feel like a struggle for the floor or a prolonged period of incomprehensible speech.\nBoth overlaps are brief and functional, contributing to the natural, engaged rhythm of the conversation rather than hindering it. They fall under the \"brief overlaps are acceptable\" category.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--31264",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm so glad you like the watch, Tyson. It's been such a long time since I've seen you smile like that,\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: I can't believe you got me something so expensive! What made you do it?\n[00:10 - 00:20] Speaker A: I wanted to show you how much I appreciate everything you've done for me. You're always there for me, no matter what. And I know how much you love luxury brands, so I thought it would\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: You really know me well, Dmitri. Thank you so much! I don't know what to say.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one.\n- Speaker B's question \"What made you do it?\" (0:06-0:09) is a direct and logical follow-up to Speaker A's initial statement about the gift.\n- Speaker A's detailed explanation of appreciation and knowledge of B's preferences (0:10-0:20) directly answers B's question and elaborates on the gift's significance.\n- Speaker B's response \"You really know me well... Thank you so much!\" (0:19-0:24) acknowledges A's explanation and expresses appropriate gratitude.\nThe topic, the gift and the appreciation it represents, is consistently maintained throughout the exchange. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps:\n    - Speaker B starts at 0:06 while Speaker A finishes at 0:07, a 1-second overlap.\n    - Speaker B starts at 0:19 while Speaker A finishes at 0:20, a 1-second overlap.\n    These are brief and natural, indicative of an engaged conversation where one speaker anticipates or responds quickly, rather than prolonged, disruptive overlaps.\n- **Pauses:** There is one short pause:\n    - Between Speaker B's turn ending at 0:09 and Speaker A's turn starting at 0:10, there is a 1-second pause.\nThis is a very short and natural pause, allowing for a smooth turn-taking without feeling disjointed or awkward. There are no long or extended pauses detected.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking are natural and contribute to a fluent conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--524",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I've been really interested in politics lately. I really want to work for the United Nations.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: I'm an American, so politics is important to me too. Do you have a favorite party?\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker A: I'm Canadian, so I don't really pay much attention to what is going on in the US.\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker B: I feel like politics can be quite complicated sometimes. Are there any certain political issues that you would like to address if\n[00:22 - 00:34] Speaker A: Actually, yes. There are so many political issues that I'm interested in. A lot of people criticize the United Nations because the organization makes decisions based on the majority of countries' opinion.\n[00:35 - 00:45] Speaker B: That's what I heard too. The majority of countries on the UN have agreed on a certain issue, which is represented by a resolution. Sometimes, people do not agree with certain policies or\n[00:44 - 00:53] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I wanted to ask, what do you think about the effectiveness of those resolutions? Do you believe they actually bring about change?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement, maintaining a clear and coherent conversational flow.\n- Speaker B's first turn (\"Do you have a favorite party?\") is a direct and logical follow-up to Speaker A's interest in politics.\n- Speaker A's clarification about being Canadian and not focusing on US politics is a relevant and consistent response to B's question.\n- Speaker B then smoothly transitions to \"political issues\" when the \"favorite party\" line of questioning isn't fruitful, which is a relevant adaptation.\n- Speaker A introduces a specific critique of the UN, which aligns perfectly with their initial stated interest in working for the UN and the general topic of politics/issues.\n- Speaker B acknowledges this criticism and elaborates on the UN's resolution process, maintaining topic coherence.\n- Speaker A's final interjection, though an interruption, is highly relevant, directly questioning the effectiveness of the UN resolutions that B was just discussing. The question about effectiveness is a natural progression of the conversation about UN decision-making and criticisms.\nThere are no instances of topic shifts that feel abrupt or irrelevant, and the logical progression of the conversation is strong.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; transitions are quick, often within 1 second or less.\nThere are a few brief overlaps detected:\n- At [00:22 - 00:23], Speaker A starts speaking 1 second before Speaker B finishes.\n- At [00:44 - 00:45], Speaker A starts speaking 1 second before Speaker B finishes.\nThese overlaps are very brief (1 second each) and are common in natural, dynamic conversations. They do not appear to disrupt the flow or cause confusion. In the last overlap, Speaker A even apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating awareness and making the interruption feel less jarring and more natural. The prompt explicitly states that \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these examples fall into that category. No prolonged overlaps or silences are observed.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--101482",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm really happy to have you on board. I know you're going to be a big help in keeping my finances in order, especially\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B: Thank you, Kiely. I just want to clarify, do you have any specific areas of concern in your finances that you'd like me to focus on?\n[00:13 - 00:23] Speaker A: Actually, yes. I'm particularly concerned about managing cash flow. It's been a bit unpredictable lately, and I need to make sure we stay on top of it.\n[00:23 - 00:43] Speaker B: Absolutely. As your bookkeeper, I'll be responsible for tracking your spending, income, and any other financial transactions. This will include preparing and maintaining financial records, as well as providing reports that give you an overview of your financial situation. Basically, my goal is to keep everything organized and up-to-date so that you can focus on other aspects like growing\n[00:42 - 00:51] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but could you also monitor any late payments or outstanding invoices? That's been a bit of a headache recently.\n[00:51 - 00:56] Speaker B: Of course, I'll make sure to keep an eye on those as well. Does that sound like everything you were looking for?\n[00:57 - 01:00] Speaker A: Yes, that sounds perfect. I really appreciate your help.\n[01:01 - 01:03] Speaker B: No problem. I'm happy to do it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn builds directly upon the previous one, maintaining clear topic coherence throughout the conversation.\n\n*   Speaker B's initial question directly addresses Speaker A's opening statement, seeking clarification on specific financial concerns.\n*   Speaker A's response clearly identifies \"managing cash flow\" as a primary concern, which is logically consistent with seeking help for finances.\n*   Speaker B then provides a detailed explanation of how their role will address this concern, demonstrating a direct and relevant understanding of the stated need.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up question about \"late payments or outstanding invoices\" is a highly relevant addition to the financial management discussion, showing logical progression from general cash flow to specific pain points. The acknowledgement \"Sorry to jump in\" indicates an awareness of turn-taking, but the content remains perfectly on-topic.\n*   Speaker B's final responses directly confirm their ability to handle these additional requests and seek closure, maintaining focus on the defined scope.\n\nThere are no instances of off-topic remarks or responses that deviate from the central theme of financial management and the bookkeeper's role. The conversation flows logically from initial inquiry to scope definition.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent fluency.\n\n*   **Overlaps:** There are a couple of very brief overlaps, such as at [00:06 - 00:07] and [00:42 - 00:43]. The overlap at [00:42 - 00:43] is a 'jump-in' which Speaker A explicitly acknowledges with \"Sorry to jump in,\" making it a natural and interactionally competent move rather than a disruptive one. These are not extended or prolonged overlaps; they are characteristic of natural, engaged conversation where speakers anticipate or react quickly. They do not hinder understanding or turn-taking.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long or awkward pauses between turns. The transitions between speakers are smooth and timely, indicative of an engaged and natural conversation. The few minimal pauses (e.g., 1-second pauses at [00:56 - 00:57] and [01:00 - 01:01]) are perfectly acceptable and contribute to the natural rhythm of speech.\n\nOverall, the turn-taking is efficient and the dialogue feels very natural and unforced.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--116001",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm not really sure. What's the difference between PCs and\n[00:03 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but I think it might help if you tell me how you plan to use the laptop. Are you looking for something for work, gaming, or just general use?\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker A: Mostly for work, but I might use it for some light gaming as well.\n[00:16 - 00:33] Speaker B: Got it. PCs are more common and tend to be less expensive than Macbooks. They also usually come with Windows operating systems, which is what most people are familiar with. Macbooks typically have a sleeker design and more powerful hardware, but they can be more expensive. They usually come with the macOS operating system.\n[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker A: Hmm, I think I want a PC then. What do you have?\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker B: We have a few different models from HP, Dell, and Lenovo. Do you have any particular brand in mind?\n[00:43 - 00:48] Speaker A: No, I don't really know much about laptops so whatever you recommend is fine.\n[00:48 - 00:56] Speaker B: Well, the HP Pavilion is a good option for general use. It has a 15-inch screen and an Intel Core i5 processor. It's also relatively lightweight and portable if you need to take it with you on the go. The Dell Inspiron is another good option that's similar in specs to the HP Pavilion but it's a bit cheaper. The Lenovo IdeaPad is also a good choice if you're looking for something budget-friendly but still powerful enough for everyday tasks like\n[00:55 - 01:01] Speaker A: Wait, you mentioned the Dell Inspiron is cheaper. How much of a price difference are we talking about?\n[01:01 - 01:13] Speaker B: The Dell Inspiron is usually about $100 less than the HP Pavilion, depending on the specific configuration. But remember, the HP Pavilion is slightly more portable, which might be important if you're on the go often.\n[01:13 - 01:17] Speaker A: Those all sound good. I think I'll go with the HP Pavilion.\n[01:17 - 01:18] Speaker B: Great choice!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout.\n*   **Initial Clarification:** Speaker B's first response, instead of directly answering \"difference between PCs and Macbooks,\" intelligently asks about Speaker A's intended use. This is highly relevant as it frames the subsequent comparison in a practical, user-centric way, ensuring the information provided is useful.\n*   **Information Tailoring:** Speaker B then provides a concise, relevant comparison of PCs and Macbooks, incorporating Speaker A's stated needs (work and light gaming).\n*   **Recommendation Flow:** The conversation logically progresses from general choice (PC) to specific brands, then to detailed recommendations based on Speaker A's expressed trust in Speaker B's expertise.\n*   **Addressing Specifics:** Speaker A's interjection to clarify the price difference of the Dell Inspiron shows active engagement and is directly relevant to the decision-making process. Speaker B responds precisely to this query, while also re-emphasizing the previously mentioned portability aspect of the HP Pavilion, which is important for Speaker A's potential \"on-the-go\" use for work. This demonstrates good recall and logical connection of previously stated information.\n*   **Coherent Progression:** Each turn builds logically on the previous one, leading to a clear and satisfactory outcome (Speaker A choosing a laptop). There are no irrelevant detours, misunderstandings, or inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits excellent interactional fluency, resembling natural human conversation.\n*   **Brief Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps detected:\n    *   `[00:03 - 00:04]` Speaker A and `[00:03 - 00:11]` Speaker B: Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which is a very natural conversational cue. This overlap signals active listening and a timely intervention to guide the conversation more effectively.\n    *   `[00:55 - 00:56]` Speaker B and `[00:55 - 01:01]` Speaker A: Speaker A interjects while Speaker B is still listing options. Speaker A's \"Wait, you mentioned...\" indicates immediate processing of information and a desire for clarification, which is natural when a specific point catches a listener's attention during a longer explanation.\n*   **No Long Pauses:** There are no prolonged silences between turns that would hinder the flow of the conversation. Speaker responses are prompt and timely.\n*   **Natural Flow:** The brief overlaps are not disruptive; instead, they contribute to the naturalness and dynamic feel of the conversation, indicating active participation and engagement from both speakers.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--670",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Do you like to bake?\n[00:01 - 00:06] Speaker B: I used to. But since I've gone vegan, it's been a lot harder. I haven't had much luck.\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker A: Oh no! I'm so sorry to hear that. What kind of baking did you like to do before\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: I usually made brownies, cakes, and cookies! They were always delicious. But I really miss them.\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker A: I have some recipes I use for my brownies. If you're interested, I can share them!\n[00:21 - 00:22] Speaker B: That would be really great!\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker A: What about you? What do you like to bake now\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker B: Chocolate chip cookies are my favorite. They're the easiest to make. But you can't beat a good lemon cake.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each turn logically follows the previous one, building coherently on the topic of baking, specifically addressing Speaker B's challenges with vegan baking and their current preferences.\n- Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's question and introduces the specific challenge (vegan baking).\n- Speaker A's subsequent empathetic response and follow-up question about past baking habits are perfectly relevant.\n- Speaker B's description of past baking items and their emotional attachment is a direct answer and relevant elaboration.\n- Speaker A's offer of recipes is a helpful and relevant suggestion based on Speaker B's expressed difficulties and missing specific items (brownies).\n- Speaker B's acceptance of the offer is natural and relevant.\n- Speaker A's question about current baking preferences shifts the conversation forward while remaining squarely within the main topic.\n- Speaker B's final response provides relevant details about their current favorite vegan baking items.\nThere are no instances of illogical jumps, off-topic remarks, or misunderstandings. The conversation flows very naturally and coherently.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - `[00:10 - 00:11]`: Speaker A finishes asking \"What kind of baking did you like to do before\" just as Speaker B begins \"I usually made brownies...\". This 1-second overlap is very common and natural in conversational turns, indicating engagement rather than interruption.\n    - `[00:25 - 00:30]` Speaker B starts \"Chocolate chip cookies...\" while Speaker A is finishing \"What do you like to bake now\". This 1-second overlap is also natural and brief.\n- There are no extended overlaps detected.\n- The pauses between turns are minimal and appropriate:\n    - `[00:20 - 00:21]` (1 second pause before Speaker B responds).\n    - `[00:22 - 00:23]` (1 second pause before Speaker A asks the next question).\nThese short pauses are natural processing times or brief hesitations, not indicative of any breakdown in fluency.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking feel very natural and engaging, with no signs of prolonged pauses or disruptive overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--307",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Like a cat on hot bricks, as you might say. I don ' t believe you are listening at all, especially\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, I just worried about him. You know, he should be here an hour ago.\n[00:09 - 00:20] Speaker A: Don ' t worry about him, he has grown up, and I think he can take care of himself very well. But as I was saying earlier, you didn't seem to be listening when I mentioned that we\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B: But he still does not come back. Do you think we should call him?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance.\n- Speaker B's initial interruption at [00:04 - 00:09] is highly relevant to Speaker A's accusation of not listening, as Speaker B immediately explains their distraction by expressing worry. This provides a clear and logical reason for their apparent lack of attention.\n- Speaker A's response at [00:09 - 00:20] first addresses Speaker B's concern directly (\"Don't worry about him...\") and then attempts to redirect the conversation back to their original point (\"But as I was saying earlier...\"). This shows logical flow, addressing the immediate new topic before trying to return to the previous one.\n- Speaker B's second interruption at [00:19 - 00:21] is also relevant, as it demonstrates their continued and persistent concern, overriding Speaker A's attempt to shift back. This reflects a natural conversational dynamic where one speaker's pressing issue takes precedence, leading to a coherent, albeit persistent, focus on the 'worry' topic.\nThe dialogue maintains topic coherence throughout, even with the shift. The shift is not arbitrary but driven by Speaker B's genuine concern, which is then responded to by Speaker A, creating a logical progression.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are two brief overlaps:\n- [00:04 - 00:05]: Speaker B overlaps Speaker A for 1 second.\n- [00:19 - 00:20]: Speaker B overlaps Speaker A for 1 second.\nAs per the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" Both overlaps are very brief (1 second) and do not constitute \"prolonged pauses\" or \"overlapping turns\" that would be considered harmful or disruptive. Instead, they indicate a natural eagerness or urgency in Speaker B to express their concern, which is a common and acceptable feature of dynamic conversation. There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--86953",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:11] Speaker A: Well, I've been working on this landscape painting for a while now, and I'm just not sure if it's coming together the way I want it to. I was hoping you could take a look and give me some feedback on\n[00:10 - 00:19] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but before we get into the details, could you tell me what your main inspiration was for this piece? I think that might help me give you more focused feedback.\n[00:19 - 00:29] Speaker A: Sure, my inspiration was a trip I took to the mountains last year. The scenery was breathtaking, and I wanted to capture the tranquility and the vibrant colors I saw there.\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker B: That makes sense. Let's take a look, then. Hmm... Well, the colors you've used are very striking and vibrant. And I like the way you've captured the movement of the water in the background. But there are definitely some areas that could use some work. For instance, the trees in the foreground seem a little bit flat and static compared to everything else in the painting. Maybe adding some more texture or detail to them would help bring them out more? Just something to consider as\n[00:34 - 00:42] Speaker A: Oh, that's a good point! I was actually thinking about experimenting with different brushstrokes to give the trees more depth. Do you think that would work?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement.\n*   Speaker A initiates by seeking feedback on a painting.\n*   Speaker B's immediate interjection, though an overlap, is highly relevant as it seeks context (inspiration) which is crucial for providing *focused* feedback, as B explicitly states. This demonstrates a proactive and helpful engagement with A's request.\n*   Speaker A then directly provides the requested inspiration, maintaining topic coherence.\n*   Speaker B's subsequent feedback is directly tied to A's painting and inspiration, offering specific observations (colors, water movement) and constructive criticism (flat trees) with a tangible suggestion.\n*   Speaker A's final response shows active listening and engagement with B's feedback, immediately processing the suggestion and asking a relevant follow-up question about implementing it.\nThe conversation flows logically from initial problem statement to context-gathering, to detailed feedback, and finally to a collaborative exploration of solutions. There are no irrelevant tangents or abrupt topic shifts.\n\n**Logical Consistency and Topic Coherence Score:** Excellent.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\nThe dialogue demonstrates good interactional fluency, characterized by natural turn-taking and acceptable instances of overlap.\n*   **Overlap 1:** `[00:10 - 00:19] Speaker B:` starts at 0:10 while `Speaker A:` ends at 0:11. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly apologizes (\"Sorry to jump in\"), indicating an awareness of the interruption. This falls under the \"brief overlaps\" category, which is stated as acceptable. It functions as an enthusiastic or necessary interjection to guide the conversation.\n*   **Overlap 2:** `[00:34 - 00:42] Speaker A:` starts at 0:34 while `Speaker B:` ends at 0:35. This is also a 1-second overlap. Speaker A's \"Oh, that's a good point!\" indicates an eager and positive reaction to B's feedback, leading to a quick uptake of the turn. This is a common and natural occurrence in conversation, falling into the \"brief overlaps\" category which is acceptable.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The transitions are prompt and natural.\n\nOverall, the slight overlaps are brief and serve interactional purposes (e.g., getting to the point, showing enthusiasm/agreement), rather than being disruptive or harmful. The flow is continuous and engaging.\n\n**Interactional Fluency Score:** Excellent.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--270",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hong, I really need to call back to the UK but I can't afford to pay for the roaming charges.\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: Well, why don't you use a local SIM card?\n[00:09 - 00:10] Speaker A: Can I just buy\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but just to clarify, are you using a locked phone? Some phones might not work with a different SIM card.\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker A: Oh, I hadn't thought about that. My phone is unlocked, so it should be fine. But how much will that cost?\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker B: Well, it's 100 RMB for the SIM card, then it will cost you about 10 RMB per minute to call the UK.\n[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker A: Got it. And I was asking earlier—can I just go to a convenience store to get the SIM card?\n[00:36 - 00:42] Speaker B: Yes, exactly. Just go to the convenience store and ask for a SIM card. Then insert it into your phone.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Each turn directly addresses the previous speaker's utterance or a relevant aspect of the ongoing discussion about calling the UK using a local SIM card.\n\n*   **Speaker B's initial suggestion** of a local SIM card is a direct and logical response to Speaker A's problem with roaming charges.\n*   **Speaker B's interruption to clarify about a locked phone** is highly relevant, as this is a crucial technical detail for the proposed solution to work. The clarification prevents potential future issues.\n*   **Speaker A's subsequent questions** about cost and where to buy the SIM card directly follow from the proposed solution and its practical implementation.\n*   **Speaker B's answers** provide the requested information clearly and concisely, guiding Speaker A through the process.\n\nThere are no noticeable shifts in topic or irrelevant contributions. The conversation flows smoothly from problem identification to solution exploration and practical steps.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency in this dialogue is generally very good, with one notable point of evaluation: an overlap.\n\n*   **Pauses:** There are no extended or problematic long pauses between speaker turns. The conversation moves at a natural pace.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one instance of an overlapping turn:\n    *   At **[00:09 - 00:16]**, Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A, explicitly stating, \"Sorry to jump in, but just to clarify...\" Speaker A stops speaking almost immediately at 00:10, and Speaker B continues their clarification.\n    *   While this is an overlap and an interruption, its impact on fluency is mitigated by several factors:\n        1.  **Acknowledgement:** Speaker B apologizes for the interruption, indicating awareness and politeness.\n        2.  **Purpose:** The interruption serves a clear and relevant purpose (clarification about a locked phone), which is crucial for the success of the proposed solution. It's a pragmatic and necessary intervention.\n        3.  **Speaker A's Response:** Speaker A does not seem flustered or unable to continue; they acknowledge the clarification and proceed with relevant follow-up questions.\n    *   Although Speaker B's turn after the overlap is relatively long (7 seconds), the *simultaneous* overlap is brief (1 second). Given the acknowledgement and the functional necessity of the interruption, it does not constitute a \"harmful\" prolonged overlapping turn in the sense of disrupting the conversation's flow or causing confusion. It feels natural for an urgent clarification.\n\nOverall, despite the single interruption, the conversation maintains a high level of naturalness and ease of interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--201",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Oh, I'm starving. It's my first time in China. And I'd like to try some real Chinese cuisine. What would you recommend?\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker B: Well, depends. You see, there are eight famous Chinese food cuisines, for instance, Sichuan cuisine and Hunan cui— they are\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker A: There're all spicy or hot, I've heard.\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B: That's right. If you like hot dishes, you can try some.\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker A: I cannot have it. Last time I had some in the US. It almost killed me.\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker B: In that case, there are also Cantonese and Kiangsu cuisines. Most people like them.\n[00:30 - 00:34] Speaker A: Oh, I'd like to try the Cantonese one. Where is it? Is it far?\n[00:34 - 00:37] Speaker B: The one I know is about half an hour to— get there\n[00:36 - 00:41] Speaker A: Oh. That's too far away. I'm really starving. Do you have a restaurant in your hotel?\n[00:42 - 00:45] Speaker B: Oh sorry, we don't. But I know one nearby.\n[00:45 - 00:46] Speaker A: What type?\n[00:46 - 00:49] Speaker B: It's Beijing dishes. It's famous for the Beijing roast duck.\n[00:50 - 00:56] Speaker A: Sounds good! But you mentioned something about Cantonese cuisine earlier. Is there a closer option for that?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B consistently adapts their recommendations based on Speaker A's preferences and constraints (e.g., avoiding spicy food, considering distance). Each turn from Speaker B directly addresses Speaker A's previous statement or question, offering relevant information or alternative suggestions. For instance, after Speaker A rejects spicy food, Speaker B immediately pivots to Cantonese and Jiangsu cuisines. When Speaker A finds the recommended Cantonese place too far, Speaker B suggests a closer alternative. Speaker A's questions and reactions are also highly relevant, driving the conversation towards their goal of finding suitable food. Even the final turn, where Speaker A redirects back to Cantonese cuisine, is logically consistent as they are still trying to find a convenient option for a cuisine they expressed interest in, showing they are still actively problem-solving based on previous information. There are no irrelevant tangents or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are a couple of brief overlaps, specifically at `[00:14 - 00:16]` where Speaker A cuts in, and at `[00:36 - 00:41]` where Speaker A interjects. Both instances are short, natural interruptions, indicating active listening and immediate reaction, rather than prolonged, disruptive overlaps. Speaker B's sentences are also cut off slightly (`they are` at `[00:15]` and `to— get there` at `[00:37]`), which can happen in natural conversation due to the other speaker interjecting. There are no noticeable long pauses between turns that would hinder the flow of the conversation. The pace feels natural and engaging.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--62886",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm so glad that officer didn't pull me over. I was really worried I was going to get a ticket, especially\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Sorry, but what speed were you going? I mean, was it over the limit by much?\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A: Just a little over, but still, it could've been enough for a ticket. I've gotten a few before and they're always a pain to pay off,\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: Oh, I bet! The fines, the points on your license—it all adds up, right?\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker A: Exactly, and dealing with the insurance hike afterward is the worst.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate excellent relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial question (\"Sorry, but what speed were you going?\") directly follows Speaker A's statement about almost getting a ticket, showing active listening and seeking clarification. Speaker A's answer (\"Just a little over...\") is a direct response to B's question. Subsequently, Speaker B's empathic \"Oh, I bet! The fines, the points on your license—it all adds up, right?\" not only acknowledges Speaker A's previous comment about tickets being a pain but also logically expands on the negative consequences. Speaker A's final response (\"Exactly, and dealing with the insurance hike afterward is the worst.\") continues this thread, adding another relevant consequence. The conversation flows naturally, with each turn building coherently on the previous one, maintaining a clear topic (consequences of speeding tickets).\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth and continuous conversation flow. There is one brief overlap detected: Speaker B starts speaking at [00:17] while Speaker A is still speaking until [00:18]. This results in a 1-second overlap. As per the guidelines, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and a 1-second overlap falls into the category of a brief and acceptable overlap, often occurring naturally in dynamic conversation. It does not disrupt the turn-taking or indicate a breakdown in communication.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--85323",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Come on Aliyah, let's go to the movies!\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: I don't want to.\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: Why not? We never go out together and it will be fun to\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: Sorry, but I really don't feel like it today.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker A: Please, just this once?\n[00:11 - 00:12] Speaker B: No, I don't want to go.\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker A: But why not? We could have a good time and maybe grab\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker B: I just don't want to, okay?\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker A: Fine, if you don't want to go then I'll go by myself.\n[00:22 - 00:23] Speaker B: That's fine with me.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker A consistently attempts to persuade Speaker B to go to the movies, and Speaker B consistently refuses. Each turn logically follows the previous one, building on the core conflict of the interaction (going to the movies vs. not going). There are no abrupt topic shifts, and the participants' responses are always coherent with the ongoing discussion. For example, Speaker B's \"Sorry, but I really don't feel like it today\" directly responds to Speaker A's \"Why not?\" and Speaker B's subsequent reiterations of \"I don't want to\" maintain logical consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are two instances of overlap:\n1.  `[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B:` overlaps with `[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A:` for 1 second (from 00:07 to 00:08).\n2.  `[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker B:` overlaps with `[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker A:` for 1 second (from 00:16 to 00:17).\n\nThese overlaps are brief (1 second each) and do not appear to be \"extended overlaps.\" They seem natural, particularly in a conversation where one person is trying to interject a firm refusal while the other is still speaking, indicating a strong stance or slight impatience/frustration on Speaker B's part. There is one brief pause between `[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker A:` and `[00:22 - 00:23] Speaker B:` which is only 1 second long (00:21 to 00:22). This is a natural conversational pause, not a \"long pause.\" Based on the criteria, small pauses and brief overlaps are acceptable.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--33",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Is this the workshop to prepare for an interview?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: This is the interview class. Welcome to our class.\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker A: I am really excited to be taking this workshop so that I can get ready for my interview next week.\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker B: We are all learning things that will help us in our interview. What do you think are some important considerations going into your preparation, like\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I think dressing neatly and appropriately is crucial. Would you agree?\n[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker B: Yes, absolutely. Second, as you can imagine, attitude and friendliness go a long way.\n[00:29 - 00:32] Speaker A: Yes, and I always feel much better when I am friendly.\n[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker B: Believe it or not, the interviewers are as interested in your questions as they are in your answers.\n[00:37 - 00:46] Speaker A: That's interesting. Any more hints as to what I should do in an interview? I think you were going to mention something about considerations earlier?\n[00:47 - 00:56] Speaker B: Oh yes, another key point is to always be honest with your answers. The interviewers really do want to know if you will be a good fit for them, so make sure your answers reflect your true self.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout.\n- Speaker A's initial question immediately sets the topic, and Speaker B provides a direct and welcoming answer.\n- Speaker A's expression of excitement is relevant to attending the workshop.\n- Speaker B's open-ended question about \"important considerations\" is a natural way to engage Speaker A on the topic.\n- Speaker A's \"jump-in\" is relevant to B's question, providing a specific \"consideration\" and asking for agreement. The \"Sorry to jump in\" indicates A is aware of the slight interruption, which makes the interaction feel more natural and attentive.\n- Speaker B's response \"Yes, absolutely\" and subsequent addition of \"attitude and friendliness\" builds logically on A's point.\n- Speaker A's follow-up on friendliness personalizes the advice, showing engagement.\n- Speaker B introduces another piece of advice (\"questions as important as answers\") which smoothly transitions the conversation.\n- Speaker A's \"That's interesting\" acknowledges B's point and then skillfully brings the conversation back to B's earlier, unfinished thought about \"considerations,\" demonstrating active listening and topic recall. This shows excellent logical consistency.\n- Speaker B's final response directly answers A's prompt for more hints and provides another relevant piece of advice.\nAll turns contribute meaningfully to the conversation about interview preparation, maintaining topic coherence and logical progression.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates strong interactional fluency.\n- **Pauses:** There are minimal pauses between turns.\n    - [00:02 - 00:03]: 1-second pause. This is a brief, acceptable pause.\n    - [00:46 - 00:47]: 1-second pause. This is also a brief, acceptable pause.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap detected:\n    - [00:17 - 00:18]: Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing their sentence. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in.\" This is a classic example of a brief, natural overlap that occurs in fluid human conversation, especially when one speaker is eager to contribute or has anticipated the direction of the other's thought. It is not an \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" overlap that would disrupt the flow.\nOverall, the pacing feels natural, and the brief overlap actually enhances the sense of a dynamic, engaged conversation rather than detracting from it. There are no signs of prolonged pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--48244",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Sarah. What's up?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much. Just hanging out. You?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: Oh, you know. Just the usual.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker B: So, what's new with you?\n[00:08 - 00:17] Speaker A: Well, I've been thinking about getting a new car. My parents are going to buy me one for my birthday, so I've been looking online and in magazines to see what I like in\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: Wait, did you say your parents are buying you a car? That's amazing! Do you have any specific brands or models in mind?\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker A: I'm not really sure yet. I just know that I want something nice and fast.\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker B: Yeah, that sounds like fun. I can't wait to see what you end up getting.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and maintain excellent logical consistency and topic coherence throughout.\n- Speaker B's initial responses (0:02-0:03, 0:06-0:07) are standard and appropriate for a casual greeting.\n- Speaker A introduces a new topic (getting a car) in response to \"what's new,\" which is a logical progression.\n- Speaker B's excited interjection (\"Wait, did you say your parents are buying you a car? That's amazing!\") at [0:16 - 0:22] is not only logically consistent with Speaker A's statement but also demonstrates active listening and engagement. The follow-up question (\"Do you have any specific brands or models in mind?\") directly builds on the introduced topic.\n- Speaker A's response at [0:23 - 0:27] directly addresses Speaker B's question.\n- Speaker B's final comment at [0:28 - 0:31] is a natural closing remark for the discussion about the car.\nThe conversation flows naturally from general greetings to a specific topic, with each turn building coherently on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns.\n- There is one brief overlap at [00:16 - 00:17] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This overlap lasts only 1 second. Given that Speaker B's interjection is one of excitement and engagement (\"Wait, did you say... That's amazing!\"), this brief overlap is characteristic of natural, dynamic conversation rather than a disruptive or prolonged overlap. It indicates enthusiasm and active participation, which is acceptable according to the criteria (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\"). It does not hinder comprehension or the flow of the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--601",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm looking for a new set of lingerie! Do you have any recommendations?\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: You are the expert - I don't know about lingerie!\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker A: I don't either, but I know what I like!\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B: I think I know what you like too.\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker A: Haha - what do you mean?\n[00:15 - 00:16] Speaker B: I know you like thongs!\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker A: Well, you are right! Do you have any recommendations?\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker B: I like this one, but I don't think it is available in your favorite color.\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I just thought of something. What about the color? Do you have any preferences?\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker B: Good point! I prefer darker colors. But I was saying, I don't think it's available in your size.\n[00:34 - 00:37] Speaker A: Aww, darn! What do you think of this one?\n[00:37 - 00:40] Speaker B: It looks nice! Does it come in your size?\n[00:40 - 00:46] Speaker A: It does, but I'm a little afraid it might be too risque for work. I'm a senior manager and\n[00:46 - 00:49] Speaker B: Wait, are you worried about the office dress code or just in general?\n[00:50 - 00:54] Speaker A: Both, actually. But as I was saying, I'm a senior vice president.\n[00:55 - 00:56] Speaker B: Just go for it!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence throughout. Speaker A initiates a request for recommendations, and the conversation progresses naturally through various stages: initial deflection by Speaker B, clarification, identification of preferences, specific recommendations, and addressing concerns (color, size, appropriateness for work).\n\nThere are a few points to note:\n- Speaker A's \"Sorry to interrupt\" (00:23) acknowledges a turn-taking strategy, but the content of their interjection (asking about color preference, directly related to what B just mentioned) is relevant and helps move the discussion.\n- Speaker B's clarification question (00:46) regarding Speaker A's concern about the \"risque\" item is also highly relevant, seeking to understand the specific context of the concern.\n- Speaker A's slight change in job title from \"senior manager\" (00:46) to \"senior vice president\" (00:54) is a minor inconsistency in detail but does not break the logical flow or coherence of the main topic. It simply seems like a slight self-correction or elaboration.\n\nOverall, the responses are well-aligned with the conversation's progression, and the topic of lingerie recommendations is consistently maintained.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good.\n- **Pauses:** There are small pauses of typically 1 second between speaker turns (e.g., A at 00:04, B at 00:05; B at 00:14, A at 00:15; A at 00:49, B at 00:50). These are natural and do not constitute long pauses.\n- **Overlaps:** There are instances of very quick turn-taking that border on or are brief overlaps, which the dialogue itself indicates.\n    - At [00:23], Speaker A starts speaking right as Speaker B finishes. Speaker A explicitly says, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" acknowledging this rapid turn-take or slight overlap. This is a brief, natural interjection rather than a prolonged or harmful overlap.\n    - At [00:46], Speaker B starts speaking immediately as Speaker A finishes their sentence segment. This is also a very rapid turn-take, likely an overlap, as B interjects a clarifying question directly related to A's ongoing thought. Again, this is a brief, natural conversational dynamic, not an extended, disruptive overlap.\n\nThe evaluation criteria explicitly state that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" The observed instances fall into this acceptable category. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would hinder the natural flow of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--103139",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much. Just feeling a little down today.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. What's been bothering\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker B: It's just that I feel like everything is going wrong lately. My job is stressing me out, my relationship is falling apart, and I just feel like I can't do anything right.\n[00:15 - 00:26] Speaker A: I can understand how overwhelming that must be. Have you thought about taking a small break from work to clear your mind? Sometimes stepping back can give you a fresh perspective.\n[00:26 - 00:33] Speaker B: I have, but I'm worried that if I take a break, things might get even worse. What if I fall behind and can't catch up?\n[00:33 - 00:46] Speaker A: That's a valid concern. But remember, your well-being is crucial. Maybe we can figure out a way to manage your workload better so that taking a break won't leave you feeling overwhelmed when you return.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A consistently provides responses that are logically consistent and maintain topic coherence with Speaker B's emotional state and specific concerns.\n*   After Speaker B expresses feeling \"down,\" Speaker A responds empathetically (\"I'm sorry to hear that\") and appropriately prompts for more information (\"What's been bothering\"). This is a direct and relevant follow-up.\n*   When Speaker B details the stressors (job, relationship, feeling incapable), Speaker A acknowledges the overwhelming nature of the situation (\"I can understand how overwhelming that must be\") and offers a practical, relevant suggestion related to one of the identified stressors (taking a break from work), along with a clear rationale.\n*   When Speaker B voices a valid concern about taking a break (\"What if I fall behind?\"), Speaker A validates this concern (\"That's a valid concern\") while re-emphasizing the importance of well-being. Crucially, Speaker A then pivots to a more collaborative and nuanced solution that directly addresses Speaker B's fear of falling behind (\"figure out a way to manage your workload better\").\nThe conversation flows naturally, with each response building upon the previous statement, showing active listening and appropriate problem-solving engagement. There are no irrelevant detours, abrupt topic changes, or misunderstandings of the core issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent interactional fluency based on the provided timestamps.\n*   Between Speaker B's turn at [00:01 - 00:03] and Speaker A's turn at [00:04 - 00:07], there is a 1-second pause. This is a brief and acceptable pause, allowing for natural turn-taking.\n*   For all subsequent turns (Speaker B [00:07 - 00:15] to Speaker A [00:15 - 00:26]; Speaker A [00:15 - 00:26] to Speaker B [00:26 - 00:33]; Speaker B [00:26 - 00:33] to Speaker A [00:33 - 00:46]), the timestamps indicate immediate turn-taking (e.g., Speaker B ends at 00:15, Speaker A starts at 00:15). This suggests either zero-second pauses or very brief, natural overlaps, which are characteristic of fluid conversation and do not constitute \"extended overlaps.\"\nThere are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns or extended overlapping turns that would disrupt the flow of communication. The timing of the turns appears natural and facilitates a smooth exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--466",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Excuse me. I get confused that the two phones on the booth are different, can you tell me how to use them?\n[00:06 - 00:18] Speaker B: Let me have a look. Oh, yes. This one is the IC phone and the other is the coin phone. If you have an IC card, you can insert it into this slot, wait for the dialing signal appearing on the small screen. Then,\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but what if I don't have an IC card? Can I still use this phone?\n[00:24 - 00:40] Speaker B: If you don't have an IC card, you'll need to use the coin phone instead. I was just about to explain how to use the coin phone. First, you pick up the receiver, wait for the dialing signal, dial the number, and then put the coin into the slot, press the 'speak' button. Then everything is done.\n[00:40 - 00:48] Speaker A: Got it. But you mentioned something about a small screen on the IC phone earlier. What does it display once you insert the card?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency.\n*   **[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A** clearly states their confusion about the two phones, setting the topic.\n*   **[00:06 - 00:18] Speaker B** directly addresses this by identifying the phones and starting to explain the first one (IC phone). This is highly relevant.\n*   **[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker A** asks a logical follow-up question that anticipates a common user scenario (\"what if I don't have an IC card?\"). This question is perfectly relevant to Speaker B's ongoing explanation.\n*   **[00:24 - 00:40] Speaker B** answers Speaker A's clarifying question directly and then smoothly transitions to explain the coin phone, which was the other type of phone Speaker A initially asked about. This shows strong logical consistency and adaptation to the user's immediate need while maintaining the overall goal of explaining both phones.\n*   **[00:40 - 00:48] Speaker A** acknowledges understanding (\"Got it.\") and then asks a question about a detail Speaker B mentioned earlier regarding the IC phone's screen. This demonstrates active listening and maintains topic coherence by circling back to a previously introduced point.\n\nOverall, the conversation flows logically, each speaker's turn is relevant to the preceding one, and there are no instances of misunderstanding or going off-topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There is one instance of Speaker A interrupting Speaker B at [00:18], but Speaker A explicitly states \"Sorry to interrupt,\" indicating awareness and politeness. This is a brief, clarifying interruption rather than a prolonged or disruptive overlap, which is acceptable and common in natural conversation for seeking immediate clarification. The prompt notes \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\"\n*   **Long Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between [00:23] (Speaker A) and [00:24] (Speaker B). This is a small, natural pause, not a prolonged one. There are no other indications of excessively long pauses in the provided timestamps.\nThe conversation feels natural and responsive, without any jarring silences or disruptive talking over each other.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--480",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: They are a nice middle-aged couple, just like us.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: If they are just like us, they are not middle- aged anymore,\n[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker A: Ethel, I just realized—do you remember when we first met? We were so young back then, it's hard to believe how much time has passed.\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker B: Of course I remember. But as I was saying, middle-aged means in the middle, Ethel, middle of life. People don't live to a hundred and fifty.\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker A: Oh, we are the part on the edge of middle. That's all.\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker B: Oh, you know, we are not middle-aged. You're old, and I'm aging.\n[00:29 - 00:37] Speaker A: Oh, fool! You're nearly seventy and I'm in the low sixties. Would you like to spend the rest of the afternoon squabbling about what age\n[00:37 - 00:45] Speaker B: Actually, before we get into that, did you ever finish what you were saying about us being on the edge of middle age? It got me thinking—how do you really feel about getting older?\n[00:46 - 00:54] Speaker A: Well, I was just going to say that I can if you like. But to answer your question, I suppose it's just another phase of life, isn't it?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Despite a minor, confusing inconsistency with the name \"Ethel\" being used by both Speaker A and Speaker B to address the other, the overall conversational flow and logical progression of ideas are well-maintained.\n\n*   **Topic Coherence:** The speakers consistently engage with the central theme of aging and what constitutes \"middle-aged.\" Speaker B, in particular, demonstrates good topic management by challenging Speaker A's initial premise, briefly acknowledging Speaker A's digression, and then skillfully bringing the conversation back to the age definition (\"But as I was saying...\") before eventually pivoting to a deeper, related question about aging (\"how do you really feel about getting older?\").\n*   **Logical Consistency:** The responses build upon each other in a natural, argumentative yet conversational manner. Speaker B consistently provides counterpoints to Speaker A's statements about age, leading to a debate that feels authentic. Speaker A's initial digression at [00:05 - 00:13] is a natural conversational maneuver, not a loss of coherence, and Speaker B smoothly brings it back on track. The final turns show a mature shift from squabbling to a more reflective discussion, initiated by Speaker B, which Speaker A readily engages with. The arguments presented by both speakers are logically sound within their individual perspectives on age.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is excellent.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap detected at [00:05 - 00:06] where Speaker A starts speaking one second before Speaker B finishes. This is a very short, natural overlap that indicates active listening and eager turn-taking, rather than a harmful interruption. No extended or prolonged overlaps are present.\n*   **Pauses:** All pauses between turns are brief (1 second or less). For example, [00:02 - 00:03], [00:13 - 00:14], [00:24 - 00:25], and [00:45 - 00:46] all show only one second of silence, which is typical for natural conversation and does not indicate any conversational breakdown or awkwardness. Many turns follow immediately after the previous speaker finishes, demonstrating very fluid and responsive turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--269",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Can I help you, sir?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yes, please. I'm picking out some presents for my children and wife.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: What kind of presents do you have in\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Actually, I don't know exactly. Do you have anything recommended?\n[00:09 - 00:22] Speaker A: OK. How about some very cool sneakers for your children? Anyway, it won't cost you much. It's only around $59.95 for each pair. It might be cheaper than that in America.\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker B: Hey, how did you know I came from America?\n[00:25 - 00:32] Speaker A: Just a hunch, sir. By the way, I was saying the sneakers are only $59.95.\n[00:32 - 00:36] Speaker B: That's really cheap for shoes like those. OK, I'll take 5 pairs.\n[00:36 - 00:37] Speaker A: Sorry, sir.\n[00:38 - 00:38] Speaker B: Why not?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Each speaker's turn builds directly on the previous one, even when there's a brief digression.\n- Speaker B's initial request for help is met with a relevant follow-up question from Speaker A.\n- Speaker B's uncertainty is met with a specific recommendation from Speaker A.\n- Speaker A's speculative comment about America is naturally picked up by Speaker B.\n- Speaker A then smoothly redirects the conversation back to the product, addressing Speaker B's query about America but not dwelling on it.\n- Speaker B's decision to purchase and Speaker A's \"Sorry, sir\" (implying a problem or clarification needed) are both logical continuations of a sales interaction.\n- Speaker B's \"Why not?\" is a direct and logical response to Speaker A's \"Sorry, sir.\"\nThere are no irrelevant tangents or bizarre statements. The dialogue progresses in a coherent and natural manner.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap ([00:06 - 00:07]), where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This is a common and natural occurrence in conversation, especially when one speaker is trailing off or pausing briefly, and the other anticipates the turn. It does not appear to be a prolonged or disruptive overlap.\n- **Pauses:** All pauses between turns are either non-existent (0 seconds, e.g., [00:09 - 00:09], [00:22 - 00:22]) or very brief (1 second, e.g., [00:04 - 00:05], [00:37 - 00:38]). These short pauses are perfectly natural and contribute to the conversational flow, indicating smooth turn-taking rather than hesitation or disengagement.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--2242",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I can't believe I'm finally here. This is my dream to be\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: You've worked hard for this, Jacey. I know you can win it.\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker A: I'm going to give it everything I've got. I won't let anything stand in my way, not\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but I just want to remind you to stay focused and not let your emotions get the better of you. If you do that, I know you'll be successful.\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker A: Absolutely, staying focused is key. I was going to say I won't let anything stand in my way.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Logical Consistency and Topic Coherence:**\nThe dialogue maintains excellent logical consistency and topic coherence throughout.\n*   Speaker A expresses their excitement and determination for an upcoming event (\"dream to be\", \"give it everything I've got\").\n*   Speaker B responds with supportive encouragement (\"You've worked hard for this, Jacey. I know you can win it.\") which is perfectly consistent with Speaker A's initial statement.\n*   Speaker B then interjects with relevant advice related to the performance context (\"stay focused and not let your emotions get the better of you\"), which directly relates to Speaker A's expressed determination and goal.\n*   Speaker A acknowledges and agrees with Speaker B's advice (\"Absolutely, staying focused is key\") and clarifies their previously interrupted thought, maintaining the flow of the conversation and demonstrating comprehension.\nThere are no irrelevant statements, sudden topic shifts, or inconsistencies. The conversation flows naturally from one turn to the next, building on previous statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Extended Overlaps:**\n*   **00:03 - 00:05 (Speaker A and B):** There is a brief overlap where Speaker B starts speaking at 00:03 while Speaker A is still concluding their sentence at 00:04. This overlap lasts approximately 1 second and is very natural, typical of supportive interjections or rapid turn-taking in fluent conversation. It is not prolonged or harmful.\n*   **00:10 - 00:17 (Speaker A and B):** Speaker B begins their turn at 00:10 while Speaker A is still speaking (finishing \"not\" at 00:11). The actual period of concurrent speech (overlap) is only about 1 second. Speaker B immediately acknowledges this by saying, \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating awareness and politeness. While Speaker B's turn continues for several seconds after Speaker A stops, the *overlap duration* itself is brief and managed appropriately. It does not lead to confusion or a breakdown in communication, but rather indicates a naturalistic, assertive (yet polite due to the apology) interjection. This is not a \"prolonged overlapping turn\" in the sense of two speakers talking over each other for an extended period, which would be harmful.\n\n**Long Pauses:**\n*   There is a 1-second pause between 00:17 (end of Speaker B's turn) and 00:18 (start of Speaker A's turn). This is a very brief and natural pause, allowing for turn transition. There are no other noticeable long pauses.\n\nOverall, the interaction demonstrates excellent fluency. The brief overlaps are natural and either part of rapid turn-taking or explicitly acknowledged, preventing them from being \"harmful\" or disruptive. There are no long, awkward pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--2",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: You're finally here! What took so long?\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: I got stuck in traffic again. There was a terrible traffic jam near the Carrefour but I\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker A: Carrefour intersection? It's always rather congested down there during rush hour. Maybe you should try to find a different route to get home.\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: I don't think it can be avoided, to be honest. Perhaps it would be better if you started taking public transport though I'm\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but do you think the public transport system would be reliable enough for your schedule?\n[00:26 - 00:37] Speaker B: I think it's something that I'll have to consider. The public transport system is pretty good. But, as I was saying, the only problem is that I'm going to really miss having the freedom that you have with a car.\n[00:37 - 00:45] Speaker A: Well, when it's nicer outside, you can start biking to work. That will give you just as much freedom as your car usually provides.\n[00:46 - 00:48] Speaker B: That's true. I could certainly use the exercise!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is consistently high. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining topic coherence throughout the conversation.\n- Speaker B's initial response (00:03) directly answers Speaker A's question about being late, providing a relevant reason (traffic).\n- Speaker A's follow-up (00:07) acknowledges Speaker B's reason and offers a relevant suggestion.\n- Speaker B's response (00:15) addresses A's suggestion and then introduces a new related topic (public transport).\n- Speaker A's interruption (00:20), though a turn-taking issue, immediately poses a question highly relevant to B's implied point about public transport.\n- Speaker B (00:26) answers A's question and then seamlessly returns to their interrupted thought about the drawbacks of public transport, specifically the lack of freedom.\n- Speaker A (00:37) then offers a solution (biking) that directly addresses Speaker B's concern about \"freedom,\" demonstrating strong understanding and relevance.\n- Speaker B's final response (00:46) acknowledges A's suggestion and adds a relevant personal benefit.\nThere are no instances of topic drift or logical inconsistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with some naturalistic features:\n- **Overlap 1 (00:07 - 00:08):** Speaker A begins speaking one second before Speaker B finishes. This is a brief overlap and appears to be a confirmation (\"Carrefour intersection?\"), which is common and acceptable in natural conversation, indicating active listening.\n- **Overlap 2 / Interruption (00:20):** Speaker A cuts off Speaker B mid-sentence. While this is an explicit interruption, Speaker A immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to cut in\") before posing a relevant question. This acknowledgment and subsequent relevance mitigate the \"harm\" of the overlap, making it a pragmatically well-managed turn-taking event rather than a disruptive one. It maintains the flow of information and topic.\n- **Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between 00:45 and 00:46, which is a small and acceptable pause, allowing for natural processing time. No long pauses are detected.\nOverall, despite the explicit interruption, the dialogue flows naturally without prolonged awkward silences or sustained overlapping turns that would impede understanding. The conversational dynamics reflect natural speech patterns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--683",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hi!\n[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker B: Hey, how are you doing?\n[00:02 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm doing good! I'd really like to go to the Caribbean this summer. Have you ever been\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Oh, the Caribbean sounds amazing! Do you have any specific islands in mind?\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker A: I was thinking about Jamaica. Have you been?\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker B: Yes, I went on a cruise to Jamaica last week. The ship docked at Ocho\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A: Wait, did you get to explore any local markets or try any traditional food there?\n[00:24 - 00:30] Speaker B: Yes, we did! The local markets were vibrant, and the food was incredible. What would you want to see in the Caribbean?\n[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker A: I would want to see all the beautiful beaches and then maybe take a water aerobics class.\n[00:37 - 00:38] Speaker B: That sounds fun.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses the previous statement or question, maintaining a clear topic coherence about Caribbean travel. For example, Speaker A introduces the topic of the Caribbean, Speaker B asks for specifics, Speaker A names Jamaica, Speaker B confirms having been, Speaker A asks for more details about the experience (markets/food), and Speaker B answers before asking Speaker A about their desires. The conversation flows naturally, with questions being answered and new, relevant questions being posed to keep the interaction going. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are a few instances of brief overlaps and short pauses, but these are all natural and contribute to the conversational flow rather than hindering it.\n- **Overlaps:**\n    - At [00:07 - 00:11], Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A (who ends at 00:08). This is a brief, eager interjection by Speaker B (\"Oh, the Caribbean sounds amazing!\") which is a sign of engagement, not disruption.\n    - At [00:19 - 00:24], Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B (who ends at 00:19). This is a very brief, almost immediate interruption (\"Wait, did you get to explore...\") which shows Speaker A's active listening and specific interest, making the conversation more dynamic.\n- **Pauses:**\n    - Pauses between turns like [00:14 - 00:15], [00:30 - 00:31], and [00:36 - 00:37] are all approximately 1 second, which are very natural hesitations or turn-taking cues in human conversation. They are not \"long pauses\" that would indicate awkwardness or a breakdown in communication.\nThere are no extended overlaps or prolonged pauses detected; the conversational rhythm is very natural and appropriate.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--130",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Can I help you?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Yes, I want a pair of sport shoes, Jordan.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: What size do you usually wear?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but do you have the latest model in stock?\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: Yes, we do. So, what size do you want?\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker B: Size 41.\n[00:14 - 00:15] Speaker A: Here you are.\n[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker B: They fit me. Can you make it a little more affordable?\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker A: Before we discuss the price, would you like to know if we have any ongoing promotions or discounts?\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B: Sure, but I was actually asking if you could make it a little cheaper.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker A's initial \"Can I help you?\" is a standard and relevant opening.\n- Speaker B's request for \"Jordan\" sport shoes is clear and directly answers Speaker A.\n- Speaker A's follow-up \"What size do you usually wear?\" is a logical next step in a shoe purchase.\n- Speaker B's interruption to ask about the \"latest model\" is acknowledged with \"Sorry to cut in\" and, while an interruption, is still highly relevant to purchasing the shoes.\n- Speaker A handles the interruption well by answering Speaker B's question (\"Yes, we do\") and then smoothly redirecting back to the original question (\"So, what size do you want?\"). This shows excellent conversational management and maintains coherence.\n- Speaker B's \"Size 41\" is a direct and relevant answer.\n- Speaker A's \"Here you are\" implies the action of providing the shoes, which is relevant.\n- Speaker B's \"They fit me. Can you make it a little more affordable?\" introduces a new, but common and relevant, phase of the transaction (price negotiation).\n- Speaker A's response \"Before we discuss the price, would you like to know if we have any ongoing promotions or discounts?\" is a highly relevant and strategic sales tactic that addresses the affordability request without directly conceding on price. It aligns perfectly with the customer's stated interest.\n- Speaker B's \"Sure, but I was actually asking if you could make it a little cheaper\" re-clarifies their direct request while still acknowledging Speaker A's offer. This is a natural progression of a negotiation.\nOverall, there are no instances of irrelevant responses or significant deviations from the topic. The conversation flows logically from one turn to the next.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The dialogue moves at a natural pace.\n- There are two brief instances of overlap:\n    - [00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B begins at 0:05 while Speaker A concludes at 0:06. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B's \"Sorry to cut in\" indicates awareness of the overlap, which is a sign of natural conversation rather than a problem.\n    - [00:17 - 00:23] Speaker A begins at 0:17 while Speaker B concludes at 0:18. This is also a 1-second overlap.\nAs per the criteria, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" Both overlaps are brief (1 second) and do not appear to hinder understanding or create awkwardness. They contribute to a sense of natural, flowing conversation. There are no extended overlaps that would be considered harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--622",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I just finished reading The Republic by Plato. Do you know it?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: I do, but I haven't read it in years. What's your favorite part?\n[00:08 - 00:17] Speaker A: I really like his ideal State structure with the perfect balance between people's individual liberties and their responsibilities towards the community and\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but do you mean the concept of the philosopher-king as well? How does that fit into the balance you're talking about?\n[00:23 - 00:35] Speaker A: Yes, the philosopher-king is a crucial part of it. They ensure wise governance. I was also going to mention the balance between liberties and responsibilities towards the State. This balance\n[00:34 - 00:40] Speaker B: I see, but don't you think the idea of a philosopher-king is a bit unrealistic in today's context?\n[00:40 - 00:52] Speaker A: That's a fair point. It might be challenging to implement today, but the principles still offer valuable insights. Let's discuss more about the practical aspects of his ideas sometime!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are consistently relevant, logically consistent, and maintain excellent topic coherence.\n*   Speaker B's initial question \"What's your favorite part?\" directly follows Speaker A's introduction of the book.\n*   Speaker A's explanation of the \"ideal State structure\" directly answers Speaker B's question.\n*   Speaker B's interruption to ask about the \"philosopher-king\" is highly relevant, seeking clarification and deepening the discussion on A's point about balance.\n*   Speaker A's subsequent response addresses the philosopher-king concept while attempting to return to the original point, showing good logical flow and adaptability.\n*   Speaker B's challenge regarding the \"unrealistic\" nature of the philosopher-king is a logical next step in a critical discussion of the topic.\n*   Speaker A's final response acknowledges B's point and offers a nuanced take, then proposes a natural way to continue the discussion later.\nThere are no off-topic remarks, and the conversation progresses naturally and logically.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The timestamps indicate a smooth and continuous flow of conversation.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps:\n    *   [00:16 - 00:23] Speaker B interrupts Speaker A's ongoing turn at 00:16, with A's turn ending at 00:17. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating awareness and natural conversational etiquette. This is a brief, acceptable overlap demonstrating engagement.\n    *   [00:34 - 00:40] Speaker B begins their turn at 00:34, while Speaker A's turn ends at 00:35. This is another 1-second overlap. This type of brief overlap often occurs in highly engaged or slightly more informal discussions where speakers are eager to contribute, and it doesn't disrupt the flow negatively.\nBoth overlaps are brief and do not hinder comprehension or the natural flow of the conversation. They reflect dynamic, engaged participation rather than poor turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--25965",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I can't believe you're making me work on Saturday. I had plans to hang out with my friends and we\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: I understand it's frustrating, Kamdyn, but we're really short-staffed today, and I need your help to close up the store.\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker A: This is so unfair. I always have to do everything around here. When do I ever get a chance to\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B: I hear you, but let's focus on getting through today first. We'll try to make it as quick as possible.\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker A: Fine. But this better not take all day. I don't want to be here all night.\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker B: We'll try to hurry, but it's going to take a few hours to close up the store properly. Thank you for your understanding and patience.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Logical Consistency:** Speaker B's responses are consistently logical and directly address Speaker A's complaints and concerns. In the first turn, Speaker B acknowledges Speaker A's frustration and provides a valid reason (short-staffed). In the second turn, Speaker B again acknowledges the sentiment and redirects to a solution-oriented approach. Finally, Speaker B addresses Speaker A's concern about duration by setting a realistic expectation and expressing gratitude.\n*   **Topic Coherence:** The conversation maintains a clear and coherent topic throughout: Speaker A's dissatisfaction with working on Saturday and Speaker B's efforts to manage the situation and secure cooperation. There are no sudden shifts or irrelevant remarks. Speaker B consistently tries to de-escalate the situation while maintaining the need for Speaker A's help.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps:\n    *   [00:04 - 00:05] Speaker A and B overlap for 1 second.\n    *   [00:15 - 00:16] Speaker A and B overlap for 1 second.\n    These overlaps are very brief (1 second each) and do not qualify as \"extended\" or \"prolonged.\" In natural conversation, such short overlaps can indicate active listening, eagerness to respond, or mutual anticipation, and they do not hinder understanding or flow. They contribute to a sense of natural, dynamic interaction rather than being disruptive.\n*   **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses indicated in the transcript between speaker turns. The dialogue flows smoothly from one speaker to the next, suggesting natural turn-taking without awkward silence.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--83961",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I can't believe it's finally our wedding day!\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: I know, me too! It feels like we've been planning this for so\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: Oh, I just realized, did we remember to bring the rings?\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Yes, I double-checked this morning. But it's all worth it now. I'm so happy to be marrying you.\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker A: I'm happy to be marrying you too, Daphne. You're the best thing that's ever happened to me,\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: And you're the best thing that's ever happened to me too. I just wanted to say that before anything else.\n[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker A: Aww, that's so sweet. I feel the same way about you.\n[00:29 - 00:30] Speaker B: I love you, Daphne.\n[00:30 - 00:32] Speaker A: I love you too, husband.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B's incomplete sentence (\"It feels like we've been planning this for so\") is immediately followed by Speaker A's interjection about the rings, which, while an interruption, is a perfectly logical and natural thought for someone on their wedding day. Speaker B then appropriately answers the ring question before seamlessly transitioning back to the emotional aspect of the day, which Speaker A reciprocates. The subsequent exchanges are all consistent with a loving couple on their wedding day, expressing affection and commitment. The logical consistency and topic coherence are excellent throughout the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is one brief overlap between `[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B` and `[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A`. Speaker A begins speaking at 00:05 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:06, resulting in a 1-second overlap. This is a brief overlap, where Speaker A cuts off Speaker B's incomplete sentence, which is common and natural in excited or urgent conversation. There are no extended or prolonged overlaps that would hinder understanding or feel unnatural. Similarly, the pauses between turns (`[00:08 - 00:09]` and `[00:28 - 00:29]`) are only 1 second long, which are brief and entirely natural, allowing for turn-taking without feeling awkward or hesitant.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--291",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I'd like to purchase a pan.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Is there any particular size that you want?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: Well, I cook a lot of big meals, so\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but do you usually cook for a large family or just for gatherings?\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: Mostly for family dinners, so I need something versatile. What do you think of this one? It's a 16' pan.\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker B: Yes, that's the right size, but it's so heavy.\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker A: Well, look at our aluminum pan. It's much lighter.\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: Yes, this is very light. But the handle is also a bit\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker A: Oh, I can show you a similar pan with a different handle. Look at this one. Same pan, but with a lightweight wooden handle.\n[00:34 - 00:38] Speaker B: Great. This is exactly what I was looking for. I'll buy it.\n[00:38 - 00:42] Speaker A: I think you'll love this pan. Do you want to pay with cash?\n[00:42 - 00:45] Speaker B: Yes. Oh, wait a second, please. What about a lid?\n[00:45 - 00:51] Speaker A: I'm sorry. I forgot to show it to you. Here it is. It comes with the pan.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A consistently responds to Speaker B's concerns about the pan (size, weight, handle, lid) by offering relevant alternatives or clarifications. Speaker B, in turn, clearly articulates their needs and issues, which Speaker A addresses. The conversation maintains a clear topic coherence throughout the purchasing process, from initial inquiry to final payment and product details. There are no irrelevant statements or sudden topic shifts, making the interaction very purposeful and easy to follow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that disrupt the flow of the conversation. The brief overlaps observed ([00:06 - 00:11] and [00:27 - 00:34]) are very short and natural. In the first instance, Speaker B apologizes for \"jumping in,\" which signals awareness and makes the brief interruption acceptable for clarification. In the second instance, Speaker A starts almost simultaneously with Speaker B's unfinished sentence, suggesting an anticipatory response that is common in fluent, natural dialogue. The absence of noticeable pauses between turns further contributes to the impression of a smooth and responsive conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--468",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I love Anthony Trollope!\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: I never read any of his books. What is your favorite one?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: I really enjoyed his book about foreign service life in Peru.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: Interesting. What about you? Do you enjoy other\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: Oh, I also enjoy reading Amy Tan's books. I really liked The Joy Luck Club and The Kitchen God's Wife.\n[00:18 - 00:26] Speaker B: I've never read any of her books. They look good, though. By the way, I was going to ask earlier, which book by Trollope is about foreign service life in Peru?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency. Speaker B's initial questions directly follow Speaker A's statement. Speaker A provides relevant answers. Speaker B's \"What about you? Do you enjoy other\" is a reasonable prompt to broaden the conversation, which Speaker A correctly interprets as asking about other authors. Speaker B's final turn, while shifting back to an earlier point (\"By the way, I was going to ask earlier, which book by Trollope is about foreign service life in Peru?\"), maintains topic coherence. Speaker A had mentioned \"his book about foreign service life in Peru\" but not the title, so Speaker B's follow-up question is logically consistent with seeking more information on a previously discussed point. While the transition is not perfectly seamless (as it shifts back after a new author was introduced), it is a common and natural conversational pattern where a speaker remembers a pending question. This doesn't indicate a lack of relevance or coherence but rather a slightly less fluid topic management. However, all turns are relevant to the overall discussion about books and reading preferences.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nBased on the provided timestamps, the interaction exhibits excellent temporal fluency. There are no indications of long pauses between speaker turns; the gaps are either 0 or 1 second, which are typical for natural, flowing conversation. Similarly, there are no extended overlaps indicated in the transcript. The turn-taking is prompt and natural throughout the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--367",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hello, there. What can we do for you today?\n[00:03 - 00:12] Speaker B: I received some leaflets in the post from you, one of them talked about a new service you have where you can transfer money between this bank and securities companies. Is that a service\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker A: Yes, that's right. We have just introduced the program, but it's very popular already.\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: I also read that if the customer is a stock investor, which I am, it's possible to get additional benefits?\n[00:23 - 00:35] Speaker A: Right again. We can provide a tailored consultation service for you, giving you the latest quotes from the Stock Exchange and help you to plan what exactly you do with your portfolio, ensuring\n[00:34 - 00:40] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but I was wondering—what if I don't want to come into the branch, can I use the consultation service over the phone?\n[00:41 - 00:51] Speaker A: Absolutely, you can use the service over the phone. By the way, I was about to mention that we also help you plan what to do with your investments. Would that be something you're interested in?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous turn.\n*   Speaker B's initial question about the new service is directly answered by Speaker A.\n*   Speaker B's follow-up question about additional benefits for stock investors is also accurately confirmed and expanded upon by Speaker A.\n*   When Speaker B interrupts to ask about phone consultations, Speaker A immediately addresses this specific question and then skilfully reintroduces the point they were making before the interruption (\"By the way, I was about to mention...\"). This demonstrates excellent conversational memory and topic coherence.\nThere are no instances where a speaker's response is irrelevant or deviates from the ongoing topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two minor overlaps.\n    *   [00:11 - 00:12]: Speaker A begins speaking just as Speaker B is finishing their sentence. This is a very brief and natural overlap, common in fluent conversation, where one speaker anticipates the end of the other's turn and prepares to respond. It does not hinder understanding.\n    *   [00:34 - 00:35]: Speaker B explicitly \"cuts in\" on Speaker A, apologizing for it. This is a deliberate and acknowledged overlap, indicating natural conversational dynamics (e.g., urgency to ask a follow-up question). Speaker A handles this interruption smoothly by addressing the new question and then returning to their previous point.\nNeither of these overlaps are prolonged or detrimental to the flow of conversation; they instead reflect natural, dynamic interaction.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long or awkward pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are prompt and natural, maintaining a good pace for the dialogue.\nOverall, the conversation flows very smoothly, resembling a natural human interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--23851",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Caraline, my man! What's up?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Not much, just enjoying the party. You?\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Yeah, same here. It's great to be able to drink and listen to music with friends without\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: Speaking of music, what do you think about the DJ's playlist so far?\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker A: It's good! I'm really enjoying it. I was just saying how great it is to be with friends and relax.\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B: Yeah, me too. I'm glad we could find a place to party that wasn't too crowded.\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: Yeah, definitely. This place is great. So, what do you think about the people here? Do\n[00:31 - 00:38] Speaker B: Actually, I was wondering, do you think we should introduce ourselves to more people here? It might be a good way to meet some new friends.\n[00:38 - 00:43] Speaker A: Maybe, but honestly, I don't really know anyone here except for you though.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Each speaker's turn builds directly on the previous one, or makes a smooth, natural transition.\n- Speaker B's \"Not much, just enjoying the party. You?\" is a direct and relevant answer to Speaker A's greeting.\n- Speaker A's response continues the theme of enjoying the party.\n- Speaker B's \"Speaking of music...\" effectively picks up on a keyword from Speaker A's cut-off sentence, demonstrating strong topic coherence and a natural conversational flow.\n- Speaker A then addresses B's question about music and smoothly loops back to their original thought about enjoying time with friends.\n- Speaker B continues this positive sentiment about the party and the venue.\n- Speaker A attempts to introduce a new topic (\"the people here? Do\"), which Speaker B interprets and rephrases into a suggestion, showing active listening and a relevant follow-up.\n- Speaker A's final response directly addresses B's suggestion with a clear rationale.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant or off-topic contributions, and the conversation progresses logically and naturally.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the pauses observed (e.g., 1 second) are brief and natural for a conversational exchange.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps ([00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B starting while A is still speaking at [00:05 - 00:11], and [00:31 - 00:38] Speaker B starting while A is still speaking at [00:26 - 00:32]). Both overlaps are approximately 1 second in duration. As per the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" In both cases, the speaker who begins to speak (Speaker B) is picking up on a topic or an implied question from the previous speaker (Speaker A) who is in the process of formulating their thought or question. This is a very common and natural feature of dynamic, engaged conversation and does not indicate a breakdown in fluency. These are not \"prolonged\" or \"extended\" overlaps that would be considered harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--101",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I cannot imagine if Trump were to be our President again.\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: I am proud to say that he is our President, and I will be really happy if he could be re- elected and\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but did you vote for him? I know that I did.\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker B: Yes, I did. I have nothing but faith in Trump.\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: What? I'm not sure about this. I mean, do you think he's really the right person to lead the country?\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker B: I am pretty sure he will make America great again!\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker A: Well, though we do need some change in this country, I don't think he is the right leader to\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker B: Our country is already changing as it is, and I trust that he will take good care of it.\n[00:34 - 00:41] Speaker A: You're right about the change, but I was going to say, I don't think he's the right person to lead that change.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B directly counters Speaker A's initial sentiment, and Speaker A's subsequent questions and remarks are direct responses or elaborations on the topic of Trump's presidency and suitability.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The conversation maintains a strong topic coherence throughout, consistently focusing on Donald Trump's potential presidency, his past actions, and his perceived leadership qualities. There are no sudden topic shifts or irrelevant remarks.\n3.  **Argument Progression:** The dialogue progresses as a clear debate, with Speaker A expressing reservations and Speaker B expressing support, and both speakers building on or directly addressing the other's points (e.g., Speaker A's concern about leadership, Speaker B's reassurance about \"making America great again,\" and the discussion around \"change\").\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There are two instances of brief overlaps.\n    *   At [00:08 - 00:12], Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing. The overlap is approximately 1 second ([00:08-00:09]). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to cut in,\" which indicates self-awareness and makes the overlap more socially acceptable and less disruptive.\n    *   At [00:29 - 00:34], Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing. The overlap is approximately 1 second ([00:29-00:30]). Speaker A's sentence is cut off. However, Speaker B's response directly picks up on Speaker A's incomplete thought about \"change,\" which suggests an eager, engaged interaction rather than a breakdown in turn-taking.\n    Both overlaps are brief (1 second) and contribute to a dynamic, natural conversation flow, especially given the argumentative nature of the topic. They are not \"extended overlaps\" that would significantly impede understanding.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are either immediate or involve very brief pauses (around 1 second, e.g., [00:03-00:04], [00:21-00:22], [00:24-00:25]), which are natural in conversation.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking feel natural and indicative of an engaged discussion.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--64577",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I don't know, I just feel like there's something missing in my life.\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker B: What do you mean?\n[00:06 - 00:14] Speaker A: I don't know. I just feel like there's something more out there for me. Like, I'm not doing what I'm supposed to be doing with my life.\n[00:15 - 00:17] Speaker B: Well, what is it that you want to explore or\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker A: I really don't know! That's the problem. I have no idea.\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B: Sorry, I just thought—have you tried talking to your parents about how you're feeling? Maybe they could offer some guidance or suggest a\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker A: Yeah, but they just tell me that I need to find a job and settle down. But that's not what I want.\n[00:33 - 00:34] Speaker B: So, what do you want?\n[00:35 - 00:42] Speaker A: I don't know! That's why I'm talking to you! Maybe if you could help me figure it out, then I would know what to do with my life!\n[00:43 - 00:52] Speaker B: Nava, calm down. We'll figure it out together, okay? Let's start with basics then. What are some things that interest you? Maybe we can narrow it down from there.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Speaker B consistently asks clarifying questions or offers relevant suggestions based on Speaker A's expressions of feeling lost. For example, when Speaker A says \"I don't know, I just feel like there's something missing,\" Speaker B immediately asks \"What do you mean?\", a logically consistent follow-up. Later, when Speaker A expresses frustration about not knowing what they want, Speaker B appropriately tries to calm them and then suggests a new, relevant strategy: \"Let's start with basics then. What are some things that interest you?\". Speaker A's responses are also logically consistent, explaining their feelings and reacting to Speaker B's suggestions (e.g., explaining why talking to parents isn't helpful). The topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on Speaker A's existential dilemma and the attempts to find a solution.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1. Speaker B (00:15-00:17) and Speaker A (00:16-00:20): A 1-second overlap. Speaker A's quick interjection of \"I really don't know!\" while Speaker B is still completing their thought is a natural and common occurrence in spontaneous conversation, indicating engagement rather than disruption.\n2. Speaker B (00:21-00:28) and Speaker A (00:27-00:33): Another 1-second overlap. Speaker A starts responding to Speaker B's suggestion as Speaker B is finishing, again showing active listening and natural turn-taking.\nAll pauses between turns are either non-existent or very brief (1 second), which are typical for a natural, flowing conversation and do not indicate hesitation or difficulty in turn-taking. There are no prolonged pauses or extended overlapping turns that would be harmful to the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--196",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi. May I join you here?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Oh, please do. You're not English, are you?\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: No, I'm American. I'm from Los Angeles, a port city of the West Coast, known\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: Oh, Los Angeles! I've always wanted to visit. How does it compare to here?\n[00:14 - 00:25] Speaker A: It's quite different, actually. LA is much bigger and more spread out, but both places have their own unique charm. I was about to say it's on the West Coast, but it's also\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: Oh, right! And you come here for tourism, do you?\n[00:27 - 00:29] Speaker A: Yes, your city is really beautiful.\n[00:30 - 00:32] Speaker B: How long are you staying here in this city?\n[00:32 - 00:35] Speaker A: Another 2 days. It was last Friday that I came here.\n[00:36 - 00:37] Speaker B: Can I get you another drink?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn is logically consistent with the preceding one, demonstrating a clear understanding of the conversation's flow. Topics transition smoothly, from initial greetings and introductions to questions about origin, comparisons, purpose of visit, duration, and finally, a hospitable offer. There are no abrupt topic changes or irrelevant remarks. For instance, Speaker B's question \"How does it compare to here?\" directly follows Speaker A's mention of Los Angeles, and Speaker A's response directly addresses this comparison. Similarly, Speaker B's follow-up questions about tourism and length of stay are coherent extensions of the conversation about Speaker A's visit.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between turns; turn-taking is prompt and natural, making the conversation feel lively and engaging. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  At [00:10], Speaker B interjects \"Oh, Los Angeles!\" while Speaker A is still speaking at [00:05 - 00:10]. This is a very brief overlap (less than 1 second) and seems to indicate excitement or active listening, a common feature of natural conversation rather than a disruptive interruption. Speaker A's sentence ends with \"known,\" implying an unfinished thought, which B picks up on.\n2.  At [00:24], Speaker B starts speaking \"Oh, right! And you come here for tourism, do you?\" while Speaker A is still concluding their sentence at [00:14 - 00:25]. This is a 1-second overlap. Again, Speaker B's interjection \"Oh, right!\" signals acknowledgment, and the follow-up question smoothly transitions the conversation. This type of brief overlap is acceptable as per the criteria and contributes to the natural rhythm of speech, showing engagement rather than a lack of fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--108883",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Massimo, you're quite the golf pro. I'm impressed!\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: Thanks, Robby. I do enjoy playing golf. It's a great way to challenge myself and stay active.\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A: I can imagine. I'm pretty competitive myself, so I can understand why you like it. Do you play often?\n[00:16 - 00:26] Speaker B: Yes, I try to play at least once a week if I can. It's a great way to relax and clear my head after a long week. Plus, it's always nice to get out in nature and enjoy the fresh air, especially\n[00:25 - 00:33] Speaker A: Speaking of nature, have you ever tried playing on different courses around the country? I hear some of them have breathtaking views.\n[00:34 - 00:44] Speaker B: Oh, absolutely! I've played on a few different courses, and you're right—the scenery can really add to the experience. But I was just about to mention how the fresh air really helps me unwind.\n[00:44 - 00:52] Speaker A: That makes sense. I definitely feel the same way. Golf is definitely a challenging sport, but it's also really rewarding.\n[00:53 - 00:58] Speaker B: Absolutely! I think that's why I keep coming back to it. It's always a new challenge, and I never get bored of it.\n[00:59 - 01:07] Speaker A: Yeah, I can understand that. It's definitely a sport that you can sink your teeth into and really perfect over time.\n[01:07 - 01:16] Speaker B: Exactly! And like you said, it's also really rewarding. There's nothing quite like sinking that perfect putt or hitting a long drive down the fairway, especially\n[01:15 - 01:24] Speaker A: Fairway! I know that feeling. It's like all the practice finally pays off in that one perfect moment. Have you ever thought about taking that skill to a competition?\n[01:25 - 01:29] Speaker B: No, not really. I don't think I'm good enough to compete with professional golfers.\n[01:29 - 01:38] Speaker A: That's understandable. But you never know unless you try, right? Who knows, maybe you have what it takes to be a pro golfer one day!\n[01:39 - 01:43] Speaker B: Ha, well maybe one day I'll give it a shot! Thanks for the encouragement, Robby.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one. For example, Speaker A's question \"Do you play often?\" directly follows Speaker B's explanation of why they enjoy golf. Speaker A then smoothly transitions to \"Speaking of nature\" by picking up on Speaker B's mention of \"nature and fresh air.\" Speaker B's responses are always pertinent, answering questions and elaborating on their points. Even when interrupted at [00:26], Speaker B skillfully brings back their unfinished thought at [00:34], demonstrating an active engagement with the conversation flow. The conversation maintains a clear topic (golf and its benefits) throughout, with natural progression from general enjoyment to frequency, benefits, specific experiences (courses, shots), and finally, the idea of competition. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or inconsistent responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns; the conversation flows continuously and smoothly. There are two brief overlaps identified:\n1.  **[00:25 - 00:26]**: Speaker A starts speaking (at 00:25) while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence (at 00:26). This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B's subsequent statement (\"But I was just about to mention how the fresh air really helps me unwind.\") indicates they were slightly cut off. However, this type of brief overlap is very common in natural, engaged conversation, where one speaker anticipates the end of another's turn or interjects with a related thought. It does not disrupt the flow but rather suggests active listening and eagerness to contribute.\n2.  **[01:15 - 01:16]**: Speaker A starts speaking (at 01:15) while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence (at 01:16). This is also a 1-second overlap. Speaker A explicitly picks up on Speaker B's word \"Fairway!\", which again indicates engaged listening and an immediate, enthusiastic response.\n\nBoth overlaps are brief (1 second each) and do not qualify as \"extended overlaps\" as per the criteria. They enhance the naturalness and lively feel of the conversation rather than being harmful or disruptive. The speakers demonstrate excellent turn-taking skills, maintaining a dynamic and responsive exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--25",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: What makes you think you are able to do the job?\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: My major is Automobile Designing and I have received my master's degree in science. I think I can do it I also\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I'm curious—did your studies include any hands-on projects or internships related to automobile design?\n[00:16 - 00:27] Speaker B: Yes, I did have some hands-on experience during my studies. However, I was going to mention that I also have a strong background in understanding the mechanical strength and corrosion resistance of various materials.\n[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker A: That's great to hear. What kind of work were you responsible for in your past employment?\n[00:33 - 00:45] Speaker B: I was a student engineer who mainly took charge of understanding the mechanical strength and corrosion resistance of various materials. I also collaborated with senior engineers on design optimization projects.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's questions consistently probe for more detail about Speaker B's qualifications and experience, which is highly coherent for a job interview context. Speaker B's responses directly address the questions asked, elaborating on their academic background, hands-on experience, and professional responsibilities. For example, Speaker B connects their major to the job, then clarifies hands-on experience when prompted, and subsequently details past employment. Even after an interruption, Speaker B manages to answer Speaker A's new question while still bringing back the point they were about to make, demonstrating good memory and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between turns; all pauses are brief (around 1 second), which is natural for conversational turn-taking. There is one instance of overlap at [00:08] where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. However, Speaker A immediately acknowledges this interruption with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the overlap feel polite and natural rather than disruptive or rude. This demonstrates good conversational etiquette and repair, preventing the overlap from becoming \"harmful\" or extended.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--103413",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I can't believe this! A politician has been caught in a scandal.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: What happened?\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: Apparently, he was taking bribes from a lobbyist. Can you imagine the\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker B: Wait, do we know how long this has been going on? I mean, has he been doing this for years or is it just a recent thing?\n[00:16 - 00:25] Speaker A: I'm not sure about the exact timeline, but the fact that he was caught at all is just terrible! I thought politicians were supposed to be honest.\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker B: Apparently not all of them are. This just makes me so frustrated with\n[00:28 - 00:35] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but what do you think will happen next? Do you think he'll face any real consequences for this?\n[00:36 - 00:41] Speaker B: I hope so, but honestly, it just makes me so angry. When people are dishonest, it really gets under my skin.\n[00:42 - 00:47] Speaker A: I can understand why you're angry. But getting angry isn't going to do any good.\n[00:47 - 00:52] Speaker B: I know that. But I can't help it. It just feels like there's no accountability anymore.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A introduces the scandal, Speaker B seeks details and expresses emotional reactions, and Speaker A responds to those emotions or shifts the conversation to logical next steps (like consequences). Each turn builds upon the previous one, maintaining a clear focus on the political scandal and its implications (bribes, honesty, frustration, consequences, accountability). There are no irrelevant diversions or illogical jumps in the conversation flow. For example, Speaker B's question about the timeline (00:09-00:15) is a direct follow-up to the scandal revelation, and Speaker A's shift to consequences (00:28-00:35) is a natural progression of the discussion. Speaker A's apology for cutting in also shows awareness and maintains conversational etiquette, even with the overlap.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  **[00:09 - 00:10]**: Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap.\n2.  **[00:28 - 00:29]**: Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is finishing their sentence. This is also a 1-second overlap, explicitly acknowledged by Speaker A with \"Sorry to cut in.\"\nAccording to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" Both overlaps are brief (1 second) and do not appear to be prolonged or to significantly disrupt the flow or understanding of the conversation. In fact, they contribute to the naturalistic feel of an engaged, informal discussion. There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--697",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I had a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch today!\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Me too! I love peanut butter and jelly.\n[00:06 - 00:14] Speaker A: What kind of peanut butter do you use? I use chunky, but I'm curious what kind you prefer and\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker B: Oh, I prefer creamy peanut butter! But I'm curious, do you ever add anything extra to your sandwich, like honey or banana slices?\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker A: Sometimes I do add banana slices, but I don't really care about brand names, as long\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker B: That's interesting! I was thinking, do you think the type of jelly makes a big difference in the taste?\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker A: Yes, it can! But I like the kind where there's the most peanut flavor!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and topic coherence.\n1.  **[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B's \"Me too! I love peanut butter and jelly.\"** is a direct and relevant response to Speaker A's initial statement, establishing common ground.\n2.  **[00:06 - 00:14] Speaker A's question about peanut butter type** logically follows from the shared appreciation of PB&J.\n3.  **[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker B's answer about creamy peanut butter** directly addresses Speaker A's question. The follow-up question about additions (honey/banana slices) expands the topic within the relevant domain of PB&J sandwiches, maintaining coherence.\n4.  **[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker A's response about banana slices** directly answers Speaker B's question. While the \"brand names\" comment is a slight digression, it's cut off, so its full relevance isn't developed, but it doesn't derail the conversation completely. It could be an uncompleted thought about personal preference in the context of food items.\n5.  **[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker B's \"That's interesting! I was thinking, do you think the type of jelly makes a big difference in the taste?\"** acknowledges Speaker A's previous point and then smoothly transitions to the other key component of the sandwich (jelly), maintaining excellent topic coherence.\n6.  **[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker A's affirmative answer and preference for \"most peanut flavor\"** directly responds to Speaker B's question about jelly, bringing the conversation back to the core elements of the sandwich's taste.\n\nOverall, the conversation flows naturally with logical transitions and responses that are consistently on-topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good, demonstrating natural conversational rhythm with acceptable pauses and brief overlaps.\n1.  **[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B's response:** Speaker B starts immediately after Speaker A finishes, indicating smooth turn-taking.\n2.  **[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker B's turn:** Speaker B starts at 00:13 while Speaker A finishes at 00:14. This is a 1-second overlap. This is a \"brief overlap\" as per the criteria and contributes to a natural, enthusiastic flow rather than indicating a problem.\n3.  **[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker A's turn:** Speaker A starts at 00:21 after Speaker B finishes at 00:20. This is a 1-second pause. This is a \"small pause\" and is acceptable, reflecting natural thinking time. Speaker A is cut off by Speaker B.\n4.  **[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker B's turn:** Speaker B starts at 00:25 while Speaker A finishes at 00:26. This is another 1-second overlap. This is also a \"brief overlap\" and acceptable, common in dynamic conversation. Speaker A's sentence is incomplete due to this overlap, which is a sign of natural, less formal interaction.\n5.  **[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker A's turn:** Speaker A starts at 00:30, exactly when Speaker B finishes at 00:30. This is an immediate, seamless transition, indicating excellent turn-taking.\n\nThere are no prolonged pauses or extended overlaps that would disrupt the conversation. The brief overlaps and small pauses are characteristic of a natural and fluent dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--165",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Does it look like a good fit?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: It's definitely your size.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: Yes, it is very nice. I'll take it.\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: Wait, before you decide, did you want to check if there are any promotions or discounts available?\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker A: Oh, I hadn't thought of that. But yes, I'll take it.\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker B: Great! How do you prefer to pay?\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker A: Let me use my credit card.\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker B: Now, if you'll just sign right here,\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker A: Oh, by the way, I forgot to ask, is there a return policy if it doesn't work out?\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker B: Yes, we have a 30-day return policy. You can bring it back with the receipt. Now, if you'll just sign here.\n[00:31 - 00:32] Speaker A: No problem.\n[00:32 - 00:35] Speaker B: I hope you enjoy your purchase. Good-bye.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn is a direct and appropriate response to the preceding statement or question, or a natural progression of the sales interaction.\n\n*   Speaker B's \"It's definitely your size\" (00:02-00:03) directly answers Speaker A's question about fit.\n*   Speaker A's \"I'll take it\" (00:03-00:06) is a clear decision.\n*   Speaker B's suggestion about promotions (00:05-00:09) is a relevant sales intervention, even if slightly interrupting Speaker A's final word.\n*   Speaker A acknowledges this suggestion (\"Oh, I hadn't thought of that\") and reconfirms their decision (00:10-00:13).\n*   Speaker B then moves to the next logical step, payment (00:14-00:16).\n*   Speaker A provides payment preference (00:16-00:18).\n*   Speaker A's question about the return policy (00:19-00:25) is highly relevant and a common customer inquiry during a purchase.\n*   Speaker B provides a clear answer and skillfully transitions back to the interrupted instruction to sign (00:25-00:31).\n*   The closing remarks are standard and appropriate.\n\nThere are no instances of topic drift, irrelevant information, or illogical sequencing.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good interactional fluency.\n\n*   **Pauses:** There are no prolonged pauses. The pauses between turns are generally very short (1 second), which is natural and facilitates smooth turn-taking.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps identified:\n    *   [00:05 - 00:06]: Speaker B starts \"Wait, before you decide...\" while Speaker A is still concluding \"I'll take it.\" This is a very brief overlap (less than 1 second) and acts as a natural, albeit slightly interruptive, intervention from Speaker B. It's a common characteristic of dynamic conversation.\n    *   [00:19 - 00:20]: Speaker A starts \"Oh, by the way...\" while Speaker B is still saying \"right here.\" Again, this is a very brief overlap (less than 1 second). Speaker A is interjecting a crucial question before Speaker B finishes their instruction. This type of interruption is common and does not hinder understanding or flow.\n\nNeither of these overlaps is \"extended\" or \"prolonged\"; they are typical of natural speech where speakers anticipate or interject. Communication remains clear and efficient despite these minor instances.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--198",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: You look terrible, did you have a car accident?\n[00:03 - 00:13] Speaker B: Well, not exactly. This morning I went to deliver milk, and the garden gate of No. 12 was locked. There was a note on the door of the house, and I thought I couldn't read it from where I was standing,\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A: Wait, did you try to get closer to read it? That sounds risky.\n[00:17 - 00:31] Speaker B: Yes, I did. I jumped over the fence and went towards the door. And suddenly, as I was trying to read that note, a huge dog rushed at me. I started running as fast as I could, but I didn't see that big branch of the tree near the garden gate. I knocked into it.\n[00:31 - 00:38] Speaker A: Ouch, that must have hurt! But what happened with the dog? You mentioned a note earlier, what did it say?\n[00:38 - 00:45] Speaker B: Thank God, it didn't jump over the fence, but stayed in the garden barking loudly. Oh, and the note? It just said \"Beware of Dog.\" Quite ironic, right?\n[00:46 - 00:50] Speaker A: It reminds me of a movie. A dog running after someone and...\n[00:50 - 00:52] Speaker B: Stop it, Mary. It isn't that funny.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance throughout. Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's question and logically begins the narrative. Speaker A's interjections and follow-up questions (e.g., \"Wait, did you try to get closer to read it?\", \"But what happened with the dog? You mentioned a note earlier, what did it say?\") are highly relevant, show active listening, and guide the story forward coherently. Speaker B consistently answers the questions and continues the narrative logically. The final exchange where Speaker A relates the story to a movie and Speaker B cuts them off with \"Stop it, Mary. It isn't that funny\" is also logically consistent with the context, showing B's emotional state and discomfort with A making light of their traumatic experience. There are no irrelevant digressions or inconsistencies in the topic or narrative flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits natural conversational fluency with no prolonged pauses. There are two brief overlaps:\n1.  **[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A:** Speaker A interjects with \"Wait, did you try to get closer to read it?\" while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This is a brief overlap (around 1 second at [00:12 - 00:13]) that is very common and natural in eager conversation, showing engagement and a desire to clarify details. It does not disrupt the flow or indicate a turn-taking issue.\n2.  **[00:50 - 00:52] Speaker B:** Speaker B interjects with \"Stop it, Mary. It isn't that funny\" while Speaker A is mid-sentence. This is also a brief overlap (around 2 seconds), and while it's an explicit interruption, it serves a clear communicative purpose—Speaker B is asserting their feelings and stopping Speaker A's line of thought. It's a natural, albeit abrupt, reaction to A's comment and does not represent a prolonged or harmful breakdown in turn-taking.\nGiven that \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" these instances fall within the acceptable range and contribute to the naturalness of the dialogue rather than detracting from its fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--336",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Excuse me. Is this the Reference Desk?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yes, what can I do for you?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'd like to find some general information on computers.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: Is this for a particular research project or some general background reading?\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I just need some general information for now.\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker B: We have quite a few magazines here dealing with computers.\n[00:19 - 00:20] Speaker A: Can I have the titles?\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: Sure, but before that, I was asking if this was for a specific project because that might help me guide you better.\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker A: No, it's just for my own interest at the moment.\n[00:30 - 00:33] Speaker B: Got it. Follow me. Let me show you how to find them.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong **Response Relevance**.\n*   **Logical consistency:** The turns follow a clear, logical progression. Speaker A asks for help, Speaker B clarifies the need, Speaker A provides information, Speaker B offers a solution, Speaker A asks for specifics, Speaker B tries to refine the understanding, Speaker A confirms, and Speaker B guides them.\n*   **Topic coherence:** The conversation remains entirely focused on Speaker A's request for information on computers. Speaker B's repeated clarification regarding the purpose of the information (project vs. general interest) is a relevant and common customer service strategy to provide tailored assistance, not a deviation from the topic. Speaker A's responses are direct answers to Speaker B's questions or requests.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent **Interactional Fluency**.\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There are no extended or prolonged overlaps.\n    *   At [00:11 - 00:15], Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing (0:12). This is a brief, 1-second overlap. Speaker A's immediate \"Sorry to interrupt\" indicates awareness and mitigates any potential disruption, showing natural conversational turn-taking where someone anticipates the end of a turn.\n    *   The overlaps at [00:27 - 00:30] and [00:30 - 00:33] are momentary, almost simultaneous turns, characteristic of natural, flowing conversation where speakers pick up cues quickly. They are not \"overlapping turns\" in the harmful sense, as they don't impede understanding or create significant conversational noise.\n*   **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses are brief (e.g., 1 second) and entirely natural for processing and initiating a response, contributing to a smooth, unforced rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--199",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: OK, Let me just have a look at the information here. You've been with the company for 6 years.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker B: That's right.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker A: Do you feel the same way as you did 6 years ago?\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B: Well, not really. I used to be more enthusiastic. Maybe it's because I'm older I also\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker A: Hold on, when you say 'older,' do you mean you're feeling burnt out, or is it more about a shift in your priorities?\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker B: It's more about a shift in priorities, I think. But as I was saying, I'm only 28, so I'm not exactly old. What else has changed?\n[00:30 - 00:37] Speaker A: I work longer hours now. I go home after 7 nearly every day, but I earn much more than before.\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker B: I see. What about the company? Is it helping you to develop new skills?\n[00:42 - 00:50] Speaker A: Yes, up to a point. I've done 2 management training courses in the last couple of years, so I think I'm ready for promotion now.\n[00:51 - 00:53] Speaker B: Do you get the opportunity to travel much?\n[00:53 - 01:00] Speaker A: Not much, but I don't really mind that. You see, I have to look after my family, especially\n[00:58 - 01:06] Speaker B: Sorry, I just realized I didn't ask—do you feel like the management training courses have fully prepared you for the challenges of a promotion?\n[01:07 - 01:14] Speaker A: They have, but as I was saying, I also have to look after my mother, so traveling isn't really a priority for me right now.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn builds upon or directly addresses the previous one.\n- Speaker A's initial questions about tenure and feelings are directly answered by Speaker B.\n- Speaker A's clarification question (\"Hold on, when you say 'older,'...\") is a precise follow-up to Speaker B's statement.\n- Speaker B's response at [00:23] directly addresses Speaker A's clarification.\n- Speaker B's question \"What else has changed?\" at [00:30] causes a subtle shift in perspective, moving from Speaker B's self-reflection to asking Speaker A about *their* experiences. Speaker A correctly interprets this as a question directed at them and responds about their own work changes. While a pivot, it's logically consistent within the frame of discussing work life.\n- Subsequent turns maintain coherence, with Speaker B asking about company support and travel, and Speaker A providing relevant answers about training, promotion readiness, and family commitments.\n- Speaker B's interruption at [00:58] to ask about the management training courses is a momentary break in the immediate flow, but it's relevant to a point Speaker A made earlier (promotion readiness). Speaker B acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry, I just realized I didn't ask—\"). Speaker A handles this well by answering the question and then seamlessly returning to their previous point about family.\nOverall, the topic coherence is maintained, and responses are consistently relevant, even with minor shifts or brief interruptions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits high interactional fluency.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two instances of brief overlap:\n    - [00:15 - 00:16]: Speaker A overlaps Speaker B for 1 second (\"Hold on, when you say 'older,'...\"). This is a natural, short interruption for clarification, explicitly signaled by \"Hold on.\"\n    - [00:58 - 01:00]: Speaker B overlaps Speaker A for 2 seconds (\"Sorry, I just realized I didn't ask—...\"). This is a slightly longer, but still brief, interruption where Speaker B jumps in with a new, albeit related, question. Speaker B immediately apologizes, indicating awareness. Both overlaps are brief and well-managed, not leading to confusion or a breakdown in communication. They reflect natural conversation patterns.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between turns. All transitions are immediate (0 seconds) or very brief (1 second), indicating a smooth, responsive conversation flow.\nThe conversation maintains a natural rhythm without awkward silences or disruptive extended overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--335",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: It's a beautiful day, isn't it?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Yes, nice and sunny.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: It's much better than last week. It was too warm for my\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: Speaking of last week, did you hear about the heatwave warning they issued? It was all over the news.\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker A: I did, but thankfully it's cooled down now. I was just saying that I'm glad summer is over. I like autumn best.\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker B: So do I. It's neither too hot nor too cold. The sky is clear and blue.\n[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker A: It's a good time to have a picnic. Do you want to have one this weekend?\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker B: I'd love to, but I think it's going to rain. The weatherman said it might start\n[00:34 - 00:40] Speaker A: Oh, really? I was just thinking, it hasn't rained for a week, so I thought we might be in the clear.\n[00:41 - 00:43] Speaker B: True, but he is usually right in his weather news.\n[00:44 - 00:49] Speaker A: Well, I hope he's wrong this time. I'm sure we'll have fine weather for our picnic.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and maintain strong topic coherence. The conversation naturally flows from general weather observations (\"beautiful day\") to specific preferences (\"last week,\" \"heatwave,\" \"glad summer is over,\" \"autumn best\"), then transitions smoothly to an activity related to the preferred season (\"picnic\"), and finally discusses potential issues for that activity (\"going to rain,\" \"weatherman\"). Each speaker builds upon the previous turn, demonstrating logical consistency. There are no instances of abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant remarks. For example, Speaker B's \"Speaking of last week...\" smoothly transitions to a related news item, and Speaker A's picnic proposal directly follows the discussion of pleasant autumn weather.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  `[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: Speaking of last week...` (overlaps with Speaker A's end at 0:08) - This is a 1-second overlap.\n2.  `[00:34 - 00:40] Speaker A: Oh, really? I was just thinking...` (overlaps with Speaker B's end at 0:35) - This is a 1-second overlap.\nBoth overlaps are brief and natural, common in dynamic conversations where speakers anticipate or interject. They do not disrupt understanding or flow.\n\nThere are also small pauses of 1 second between some turns (e.g., A's turn ends at 0:30, B's starts at 0:31; A's turn ends at 0:40, B's starts at 0:41; B's turn ends at 0:43, A's starts at 0:44). These are acceptable and contribute to a natural conversational rhythm, allowing for slight processing time without feeling prolonged or awkward. There are no long pauses or extended overlaps that would indicate a breakdown in fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--521",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Are you good at math?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Yeah, it's my favorite subject.\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: Algebra is definitely not my favorite subject. How about you, what's your favorite topic within\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Actually, I find algebra quite interesting because of its logical structure. But what's your favorite subject?\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker A: That would probably be history or English. What's your favorite subject?\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B: Physics. And math is a close second.\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker A: Physics sounds really fun, but I'm not very good at math. I'm really bad at solving complex\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker B: Algebra can be tricky, but once you get the hang of it, it becomes much easier. Have you tried any online resources or tutoring?\n[00:34 - 00:41] Speaker A: No, I haven't tried that yet. I was going to say I'm really bad at algebra. Maybe tutoring could help.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's first response is a direct answer to Speaker A's question.\n- Speaker A's follow-up about Algebra and favorite topics is a natural progression based on B's affinity for math.\n- Speaker B acknowledges A's disinterest in Algebra while smoothly shifting to ask A's overall favorite subject, which is coherent as A had already indicated math wasn't their favorite.\n- Speaker A responds directly to B's question and reciprocates, maintaining the conversational turn-taking.\n- Speaker B answers the reciprocal question clearly.\n- Speaker A ties B's answer (Physics) back to their own initial statement about not being good at math, particularly complex problem-solving, which naturally leads back to the earlier mention of algebra.\n- Speaker B then offers advice related to algebra, directly addressing A's expressed difficulty and offering potential solutions.\n- Speaker A's final response addresses B's suggestions and reaffirms their difficulty with algebra, showing they were listening and considering the advice.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses, abrupt topic shifts without proper transition, or logical inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good, indicating a natural and dynamic conversation.\n- **Pauses:** There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns. The pauses that do exist (e.g., 1-second pause between [00:01 - 00:03] B and [00:04 - 00:10] A; 1-second pause between [00:21 - 00:21] B and [00:22 - 00:28] A) are brief and natural, allowing for processing and turn-taking without disrupting the flow. Many transitions are immediate, indicating a high level of engagement.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps identified:\n    - [00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B starts at 0:09 while Speaker A finishes at 0:10. This is a 1-second overlap.\n    - [00:27 - 00:34] Speaker B starts at 0:27 while Speaker A finishes at 0:28. This is another 1-second overlap.\nThese are considered 'brief overlaps' as per the instructions and are acceptable in natural conversation, often indicating active listening, enthusiasm, or anticipation of the end of a turn. They do not seem to cause any disruption or misunderstanding in the dialogue.\nOverall, the pacing is excellent, contributing to a fluid and engaging exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--10476",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I can't believe how different fashion was back in the 80s!\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker B: Yeah, it's definitely changed a lot since then. I remember my mom used to dress me in all these crazy neon leggings and\n[00:09 - 00:19] Speaker A: Neon colors? Oh, I totally get it. And the shoulder pads were so big! It's hard to believe that people actually thought that style was attractive.\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker B: Yeah, well, to each their own, I guess. But speaking of the past, have you seen those old magazines from the 50s? The clothes they wore back then are really elegant and\n[00:27 - 00:35] Speaker A: Fascinating, right? I've been meaning to check those out. I've heard that the fashion back then was a lot more conservative than it is now.\n[00:35 - 00:43] Speaker B: That's true. A lot of women used to wear dresses all the time, even when they were just going out to run errands. Can you imagine doing that now?\n[00:43 - 00:51] Speaker A: No way! I would never want to be restricted like that. I like being able to wear whatever I want, whenever I want.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence. The conversation naturally progresses from 80s fashion (Speaker A's initial point, Speaker B's anecdote, Speaker A's further observations) to 50s fashion (Speaker B's pivot, Speaker A's interest and comment on conservativeness, Speaker B's example, Speaker A's reaction). Each speaker's turn builds upon the previous one, maintaining a clear thematic thread about historical fashion trends. There are no instances of irrelevant responses, topic drift, or contradictory statements. The flow is very natural and conversational.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue shows good interactional fluency, but with one notable extended overlap.\n- **[00:09 - 00:19] Speaker A:** This turn starts at 0:09 while Speaker B is still speaking (B speaks until 0:10). This creates a 1-second overlap. This is a brief overlap and generally acceptable in natural conversation, often indicating active listening or eagerness to contribute.\n- **[00:27 - 00:35] Speaker A:** This turn starts at 0:27 while Speaker B is still speaking (B speaks until 0:28). This creates a 1-second overlap. Similar to the above, this is a brief and acceptable overlap.\n\nThere are no noticeable long pauses between turns. The brief overlaps indicate a natural, dynamic conversation rather than a rigid turn-taking structure. Based on the provided guidelines (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\"), these instances do not detract from the fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--99439",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Thank you so much for taking the time to deliver this package for me. I really appreciate you going\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but I wanted to ask—was this package time-sensitive? I noticed you seemed a bit anxious when you handed it over.\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: Yes, it was actually. I needed it delivered today because it's a gift for a friend's birthday. I'm just glad you could help.\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker B: You're welcome. It's no problem at all.\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker A: I know it's not easy being a postman and having to deal with all the different challenges that\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker B: Different people on the route, right? Yeah, it can be tough sometimes. But I like my job and I like helping people.\n[00:34 - 00:38] Speaker A: That's good to hear. I'm sure the people on your route appreciate you too.\n[00:39 - 00:40] Speaker B: I hope so.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn builds directly upon the previous one, maintaining a coherent topic flow.\n- Speaker B's initial interjection asking about the package's time-sensitivity is a direct and relevant follow-up to Speaker A's expression of gratitude, and is cued by Speaker A's perceived anxiety.\n- Speaker A's explanation about the birthday gift directly answers Speaker B's question.\n- Speaker B's \"You're welcome\" is a standard and appropriate response to gratitude.\n- Speaker A's subsequent comment about the challenges of being a postman naturally extends the appreciation for Speaker B's effort.\n- Speaker B's collaborative completion of Speaker A's thought (\"Different people on the route, right?\") and subsequent elaboration on liking their job demonstrates active listening and maintains the conversational thread about the nature of Speaker B's work.\n- Speaker A's final remark of appreciation and Speaker B's humble response provide a natural conclusion to the interaction.\nThere are no instances where turns feel out of place, irrelevant, or create logical inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent fluency.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth, natural conversational rhythm.\n- There are two instances of overlap:\n    - [00:04 - 00:05] (1 second overlap) Speaker B's \"Sorry to jump in\" acknowledges their brief overlap with Speaker A. This is a common and acceptable conversational marker, showing eagerness to ask a relevant question without being disruptive.\n    - [00:27 - 00:28] (1 second overlap) Speaker B collaboratively completes Speaker A's sentence (\"challenges that different people on the route, right?\"). This type of brief, facilitative overlap is indicative of high engagement and mutual understanding, not disruption.\nAccording to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" Both overlaps are brief (1 second) and contextually appropriate, enhancing rather than hindering the flow of the conversation. They do not constitute \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlapping turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--95769",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey Destinee, how's it going?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Hey Delaney. Not too bad, just trying to wrap my head around this concept.\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: Yeah, I can understand that. It can be tough at first, but you'll get there. Just keep asking questions whenever\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: Actually, speaking of questions, there's something that's been bugging me—how do the small details fit into the bigger picture?\n[00:20 - 00:29] Speaker A: Great question! The small details are crucial because they build the foundation. Once you have those down, the rest will start to fall into place and make more sense.\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker B: Okay, I see what you mean. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me again.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial response (00:02-00:06) directly answers Speaker A's greeting and introduces the topic of struggling with a concept, which is a natural follow-up.\n- Speaker A's subsequent encouragement (00:06-00:13) is relevant to Speaker B's expressed difficulty.\n- Speaker B's question (00:13-00:19) builds directly on Speaker A's suggestion to \"keep asking questions\" and pivots to a specific, coherent detail about the \"concept\" they are trying to grasp.\n- Speaker A's explanation (00:20-00:29) provides a direct and helpful answer to Speaker B's question.\n- Speaker B's final turn (00:29-00:34) appropriately acknowledges understanding and expresses gratitude for the explanation.\nThe conversation flows logically, and the participants stay on topic, building on each other's contributions effectively.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no extended overlaps indicated by the timestamps; turns begin precisely as the previous one ends, or with a very brief, natural pause (e.g., the 1-second gap between Speaker B at 00:19 and Speaker A at 00:20, which is perfectly acceptable and natural in conversation). There are no long pauses that would disrupt the flow or indicate a lack of responsiveness. The turn-taking is smooth and natural, contributing to a fluid conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--67",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Have you considered upgrading your system?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Yes, but I'm not sure what exactly I would need to\n[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but before we dive into specifics, do you have a budget in mind for this upgrade? It might help narrow down your options.\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker B: I haven't set a strict budget yet, but I want to make sure I get the best value for the investment. You mentioned adding a painting program earlier—what else should I consider?\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker A: You could consider adding a painting program to your software. It would allow you to make up your own flyers and banners for advertising.\n[00:30 - 00:31] Speaker B: That would be a definite bonus.\n[00:32 - 00:36] Speaker A: You might also want to upgrade your hardware because it is pretty outdated now.\n[00:37 - 00:38] Speaker B: How can we do that?\n[00:38 - 00:50] Speaker A: You'd probably need a faster processor, to begin with. And you also need a more powerful hard disc, more memory and a faster modem. Do you have a CD-ROM drive installed,\n[00:49 - 00:55] Speaker B: Oh, actually, I just remembered—what about compatibility with the software I currently use? Will these upgrades affect that?\n[00:56 - 01:07] Speaker A: Good point. Most of the upgrades should be compatible, but it's always wise to check the software requirements before making any changes. Also, regarding the CD-ROM, do you have one?\n[01:08 - 01:08] Speaker B: No.\n[01:09 - 01:15] Speaker A: Then you might want to add a CD-ROM drive too, because most new software programs are coming out on CDs.\n[01:16 - 01:17] Speaker B: That sounds great. Thanks.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, contributing to a coherent conversation about system upgrades.\n\n*   **Logical Consistency:** Speaker A introduces the idea of upgrading, Speaker B expresses uncertainty, Speaker A asks a clarifying question (budget), Speaker B responds and redirects, Speaker A provides specific suggestions (software, then hardware), Speaker B asks for details, Speaker A provides them, Speaker B raises a crucial point (compatibility), and Speaker A addresses it while circling back to an earlier question. This consistent back-and-forth demonstrates clear understanding and logical progression.\n*   **Topic Coherence:** The conversation stays tightly focused on system upgrades, moving naturally from general considerations (budget, overall need) to specific components (software, processor, hard disk, memory, modem, CD-ROM) and practical concerns (compatibility). Even the interruptions introduce relevant topics or urgent considerations within the same overall theme. The \"painting program\" mention by Speaker B, although not explicitly stated by Speaker A earlier in *this* transcript, is immediately picked up and elaborated upon by Speaker A, indicating shared context and good topic management.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, closely mimicking natural human conversation.\n\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    *   `[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker A` overlaps with `[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B` by 1 second. Speaker A explicitly mitigates this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which is a common and natural conversational softener, indicating good interactional awareness.\n    *   `[00:49 - 00:55] Speaker B` overlaps with `[00:38 - 00:50] Speaker A` by 1 second. Speaker B prefaces this with \"Oh, actually, I just remembered—\", indicating a sudden, important thought that needs to be interjected, which is also a very natural conversational behavior.\n    These overlaps are brief, not extended, and are handled in a way that enhances the naturalness of the dialogue rather than detracting from it. They do not disrupt the flow or meaning of the conversation.\n*   **Pauses:** All pauses between speaker turns are brief (typically 1 second or less), indicating a smooth and responsive exchange without any awkward silences or delays. There are no \"long pauses\" detected.\n\nOverall, the fluency feels highly natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--696",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I think Levi's Jeans are ugly! They're uncomfortable and they make you look stiff and they don't\n[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I have to say that I love wearing Levi's Jeans! They fit me perfectly and feel really comfortable. You're being too harsh!\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: You can like what you want, but that doesn't mean I have to like it too. If I don't like something I won't\n[00:18 - 00:26] Speaker B: I totally get that. By the way, I don't like wearing long-sleeve shirts. I don't like when my arms get sweaty. I'm happy wearing short-sleeved shirts and jeans.\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker A: I was just saying, if I don't like something, I won't wear it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker B's first turn directly addresses Speaker A's initial statement about Levi's Jeans. Speaker A then reasserts their preference, which Speaker B acknowledges (\"I totally get that\"). Speaker B then shifts the topic slightly to general clothing preferences (long-sleeve shirts), which is a logical extension of the discussion on personal style. Speaker A's final statement, \"I was just saying, if I don't like something, I won't wear it,\" acts as a reinforcement of their personal philosophy that was interrupted earlier and is also broadly relevant to the discussion of personal clothing preferences that Speaker B just introduced. While Speaker A doesn't directly engage with Speaker B's specific example of long-sleeve shirts, they return to and complete their general principle, which applies to the broader topic now being discussed. This shows logical consistency and maintains overall topic coherence, moving from a specific item (Levi's) to a general principle of personal choice in clothing.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are two brief overlaps:\n1.  [00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which mitigates the interruption and makes it acceptable in natural conversation.\n2.  [00:18 - 00:19] Speaker B interrupts Speaker A again. This is another 1-second overlap. While there's no apology this time, it's still a very brief overlap and not \"prolonged\" or \"extended\" according to the criteria. It reflects natural, enthusiastic conversational turns.\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns. The dialogue flows smoothly, reflecting a dynamic and engaged conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--268",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Congratulations! Mr. Stuart! You won the city marathon.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Thank you. I am very honored and\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I was wondering, how did you manage to maintain such a fast pace throughout the race?\n[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker B: It took a lot of training and mental preparation. I am very excited about the win, but I haven't mentioned how happy I am that I won such a big game because it\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker A: I can imagine! But I noticed you seemed to have a lot of support from the crowd, especially near the finish line. Did that help you push through?\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker B: Absolutely, the crowd's energy was incredible. But as I was saying, winning this big game was truly a special moment for me.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A consistently asks questions that are directly related to Speaker B's marathon win, covering aspects like maintaining pace, crowd support, and the overall experience. Speaker B's responses directly address these questions while also attempting to express personal feelings about the achievement. Speaker B's use of \"big game\" instead of \"marathon\" is a minor terminology shift, but the underlying meaning of a significant victory is consistent with the topic. Both speakers stay on topic and contribute meaningfully to the conversation's progression.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits brief overlaps caused by Speaker A interrupting Speaker B twice.\nAt [00:06], Speaker A explicitly says \"Sorry to interrupt,\" acknowledging the interruption, which makes it a conscious and brief cut-in. Speaker B's statement is cut short but the conversation immediately flows to Speaker A's relevant question.\nAt [00:20], Speaker A interrupts Speaker B again. While Speaker A doesn't apologize this time, the interruption is still brief, and the conversation picks up immediately. Speaker B then explicitly references \"as I was saying\" at [00:29], indicating that their previous thought was cut off.\nAccording to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" These are brief interruptions, not extended overlaps where both speakers are talking over each other for a prolonged period. There are no long pauses. While Speaker A's repeated interruptions slightly disrupt Speaker B's ability to elaborate fully, they do not lead to a breakdown in communication or significant conversational awkwardness that would qualify as \"harmful\" prolonged pauses or overlapping turns. The conversation remains dynamic and continuous.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--86",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What's the matter with this computer?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: I don't know, but it just doesn't work well. Whenever I start it, it stops responding after\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: Stops running? That sounds frustrating. Have you asked Mr. Li for some advice?\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: Yes, I have, but he doesn't seem to be able to solve the problem, either. Can you help me figure\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker A: Sorry, I just remembered—did Mr. Li mention anything about what might be causing the issue?\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker B: He didn't have any specific ideas. I was actually going to ask if you could help me, but I know you said you only play computer games.\n[00:27 - 00:35] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm not much help beyond that. What shall you do? You said you need to finish a report this afternoon, but...\n[00:35 - 00:39] Speaker B: But why don't you ring up the repairmen? They will be able to settle the problem.\n[00:39 - 00:41] Speaker A: Yes, I'll ring them up.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly follows from the previous one, addressing the core issue of the broken computer and the attempts to solve it.\n\n*   Speaker B's initial explanation of the computer problem is directly responsive to Speaker A's opening question.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up questions about Mr. Li are relevant attempts to find a solution or understand previous attempts.\n*   Speaker B's responses consistently provide updates on Mr. Li's involvement and express continued need for help.\n*   The discussion about Speaker A's limited computer skills (\"only play computer games\") and Speaker A's acknowledgement (\"I'm not much help beyond that\") is a logical and coherent detour within the problem-solving context.\n*   Speaker B's suggestion to call repairmen is a practical and direct solution to the problem at hand, which Speaker A readily accepts.\n\nThe conversation maintains topic coherence throughout, focusing on the computer issue and potential resolutions without introducing irrelevant information. The flow of information is clear and easy to follow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are no indications of long pauses between speaker turns; the timestamps show turns following quickly one after another, which is characteristic of natural, engaged conversation.\n\nRegarding overlaps:\n*   At [00:05 - 00:10], Speaker A starts speaking at 0:05 while Speaker B finishes at 0:06. This is a very brief, one-second overlap. Speaker A's \"Stops running?\" sounds like a clarification or an engaged reaction to Speaker B's cut-off sentence, which is a common and acceptable dynamic in natural speech and does not impede understanding or disrupt the flow.\n*   At [00:15 - 00:20], Speaker A starts at 0:15 while Speaker B finishes at 0:16. Again, this is a very brief, one-second overlap. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the overlap with \"Sorry, I just remembered—\", which indicates a natural interruption due to a sudden thought. This is not an \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" overlap, but rather a brief, engaged overlap that happens frequently in spontaneous conversation and doesn't hinder the interaction.\n\nOverall, the brief overlaps observed do not constitute \"harmful\" prolonged overlapping turns; instead, they contribute to the naturalness and engagement of the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--416",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What do you think about birds?\n[00:02 - 00:08] Speaker B: I have always loved birds. They are so beautiful and unique. I would love to keep birds as pets, but my apartment doesn't allow pets,\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: Oh, I'm sorry. Have you considered talking to your landlord about it? Maybe they could make an exception.\n[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker B: I haven't tried that yet. What kinds of birds are you into?\n[00:18 - 00:28] Speaker A: Well, I used to have a budgie when I was in college. But I also have a lot of respect for pigeons. They don't have a high opinion of us, but they don't deserve to be ignored or\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker B: Treated like trash, right? I totally get that. Pigeons are quite misunderstood.\n[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker A: Exactly, a lot of people don't like them, but they aren't so different from us.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate excellent logical consistency and topic coherence. Each speaker's turn directly relates to the previous statement or question, building upon the conversation naturally. For instance, Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's initial question about birds, and then Speaker A responds with empathy and a relevant suggestion. Speaker B then gracefully shifts the topic back to Speaker A's preferences, which A answers. The completion of A's sentence by B (\"Treated like trash, right?\") perfectly exemplifies active listening and coherent contribution. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant remarks, ensuring a smooth and meaningful exchange.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is highly natural and appropriate. There are two instances of brief, 1-second overlaps (Speaker A starting at 0:07 while Speaker B finishes at 0:08, and Speaker B starting at 0:27 while Speaker A finishes at 0:28). These short overlaps are typical in natural conversation and indicate active listening and engagement, rather than being prolonged or disruptive. They do not constitute \"extended overlaps\" as per the criteria. Similarly, there are no long pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are quick and seamless (e.g., 1-second gaps), contributing to the natural flow of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--632",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What do you like to watch?\n[00:01 - 00:06] Speaker B: The Outlander Series is my favorite show! I'm excited for the new season to\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Oh really? I'm a fan too, but I haven't seen the new season yet. I need to catch up.\n[00:11 - 00:12] Speaker B: Have you read the books?\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: I read the first one in high school, but I didn't get a\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: I actually thought the first book was captivating, but maybe it just wasn't your style. What didn't you like about it?\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker A: I didn't love it because it felt a bit slow for me. I'm surprised you don't like it. It gets much better.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with good topic coherence and logical consistency. Speaker A asks what Speaker B likes to watch, and Speaker B responds directly with \"The Outlander Series.\" Speaker A then shares a common interest. Speaker B transitions smoothly to asking about the books. Speaker A answers.\n\nHowever, there is a clear issue in the final turn from Speaker A.\nSpeaker B states: \"I actually thought the first book was captivating, but maybe it just wasn't your style. What didn't you like about it?\" This indicates B *liked* the first book.\nSpeaker A responds: \"I didn't love it because it felt a bit slow for me. I'm surprised you don't like it. It gets much better.\"\nSpeaker A's statement \"I'm surprised you don't like it\" directly contradicts what Speaker B just said (\"I actually thought the first book was captivating\"). This shows a misunderstanding or misinterpretation from Speaker A, making the response logically inconsistent with the immediate preceding turn. This is a significant breakdown in logical consistency and direct response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  At [00:05 - 00:11], Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing their sentence (Speaker B ends at 00:06). This is a 1-second overlap.\n2.  At [00:15 - 00:20], Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence (Speaker A ends at 00:16). This is a 1-second overlap.\n\nBoth overlaps are brief (1 second) and appear to be natural instances of conversational turn-taking, where one speaker anticipates or reacts quickly. They do not seem prolonged or disruptive.\nThere is one brief pause at [00:12 - 00:13], which is 1 second long. This is a very short and natural pause, not a prolonged one.\nOverall, the interaction flows naturally with acceptable brief overlaps and pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--612",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: What is your company's biggest challenge?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Well, we have a lot of competitors and we can't really compete on price.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: That's really hard. What do you think you could do to\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker B: Sorry to cut you off, but I think it's important to mention that we also struggle with marketing our unique value proposition effectively.\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker A: We need to start looking at our brand and see where we can leverage it. We also need to try and get into new markets.\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B: That's a good idea. Have you ever thought about getting business advice from experts\n[00:25 - 00:33] Speaker A: Actually, yes, but I wanted to clarify, when you mentioned leveraging our brand, do you have specific strategies in mind?\n[00:33 - 00:39] Speaker B: I did have one consultant on contract for a year. But it was hard to find someone to work with us, and it was just too expensive.\n[00:40 - 00:43] Speaker A: Well, you have to invest some money to make money.\n[00:43 - 00:46] Speaker B: Yeah, I understand. Do you have any ideas?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance.\n-   Speaker B's initial response directly answers Speaker A's question about the biggest challenge.\n-   Speaker B's interruption, while a minor fluency issue, introduces a relevant additional challenge, maintaining topic coherence.\n-   Speaker A's suggestions about branding and new markets are logical responses to the challenges presented.\n-   Speaker B's pivot to seeking expert advice is a natural extension of discussing solutions for business challenges.\n-   Speaker A's follow-up question about \"leveraging our brand\" seeks clarification on a relevant point they introduced.\n-   Speaker B's explanation about consultants directly addresses the implied question about seeking advice and provides context for their previous statement.\n-   Speaker A's comment about investing money is a relevant, albeit somewhat blunt, reaction to Speaker B's concern about cost.\n-   Speaker B's final question directly re-engages and asks for further ideas, maintaining the problem-solving discussion.\nAll turns are logically consistent and stay on topic. There are no instances of misunderstandings or irrelevant contributions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction generally flows well, but there are two instances of overlaps:\n-   **[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker B:** Speaker B starts at 00:08 while Speaker A is still speaking (ending at 00:10). This is a 2-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly apologizes (\"Sorry to cut you off\"), which mitigates the negative impact of the interruption. This suggests an eagerness to contribute rather than a disregard for the other speaker.\n-   **[00:25 - 00:33] Speaker A:** Speaker A starts at 00:25 while Speaker B is still speaking (ending at 00:26). This is a 1-second overlap. This is a very brief overlap and is common in natural conversation, often indicating active listening and turn-taking.\n\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns. The identified overlaps, while present, are relatively brief. The 2-second overlap is acknowledged, and the 1-second overlap is minimal. Neither seems \"prolonged\" enough to significantly harm the interaction or indicate poor fluency according to the given criteria (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful\"). The conversation maintains a good rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--41738",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: So I was thinking, maybe we could add a new move to our repertoire.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yeah? What did you have in mind? Something\n[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I just thought of something—what if we go for something really flashy? Like something that could make us stand out even more?\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: I call it \"The Twirl.\" Watch. *beckett performs the move*\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker A: That looks amazing! How did you come up with the idea?\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B: Hold on, do you think it's too flashy though? I mean, what if it's too much for the crowd?\n[00:26 - 00:37] Speaker A: I was just messing around in my bedroom and came up with it. I practiced it a few times before coming out tonight and I think it's ready for prime time. Trust me, it's not too much.\n[00:38 - 00:39] Speaker B: Alright, let's give it a shot.\n[00:40 - 00:43] Speaker A: I can't believe this! \"The Twirl\" is taking over the club!\n[00:44 - 00:45] Speaker B: I told you it would be a hit!\n[00:46 - 00:50] Speaker A: Yeah, but I didn't think it would be this big! This move is going to make us famous!\n[00:51 - 00:55] Speaker B: That's what I'm hoping for! Just think, we could be known as the creators of \"The Twirl\"!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout.\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A initiates a topic.** Speaker B's immediate follow-up asking \"What did you have in mind?\" is perfectly relevant.\n2.  **[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker A's interjection \"Sorry to jump in, but I just thought of something—what if we go for something really flashy?\"** is relevant as it directly responds to the prompt of \"a new move\" and elaborates on the type of move.\n3.  **[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B introducing and demonstrating \"The Twirl\"** is a direct and logical response to Speaker A's suggestion of a \"flashy\" new move.\n4.  **[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker A's reaction \"That looks amazing! How did you come up with the idea?\"** is a natural and relevant response to the demonstration.\n5.  **[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B's concern \"Hold on, do you think it's too flashy though?\"** directly addresses the earlier discussion of \"flashy\" moves and Speaker A's immediate positive reaction, showing logical progression and consideration.\n6.  **[00:26 - 00:37] Speaker A's response addresses both Speaker B's concern about \"too much\" (\"Trust me, it's not too much.\") and the earlier unanswered question about the origin (\"I was just messing around in my bedroom and came up with it.\").** This demonstrates excellent coherence, picking up previous threads and addressing them appropriately.\n7.  **[00:38 - 00:39] Speaker B's agreement \"Alright, let's give it a shot.\"** logically follows Speaker A's reassurance.\n8.  **The shift to a successful outcome (\"The Twirl\" is taking over the club!) and subsequent reactions** are consistent with the premise of introducing a new, successful move, indicating a natural time jump in the narrative.\n9.  **The final exchanges about fame and recognition** are a logical and coherent extension of the perceived success of \"The Twirl.\"\n\nOverall, the conversation is highly coherent, with each speaker's turn logically building upon the previous one, addressing questions, concerns, and developing the central topic. There are no abrupt topic shifts or illogical statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good, demonstrating natural conversational dynamics.\n1.  **[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B's turn is briefly overlapped by [00:05 - 00:13] Speaker A's turn.** Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in.\" This is a brief overlap (about 1 second) and is a very common and natural occurrence in enthusiastic conversations where one speaker has a sudden thought and interjects. It does not hinder comprehension or disrupt the flow; rather, it enhances the naturalness.\n2.  **[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker A's turn is briefly overlapped by [00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B's turn.** Speaker B initiates with \"Hold on,\" indicating a need to interject with a pressing thought. This is also a brief overlap (about 1 second) and again, is typical in natural dialogue, showing a speaker interjecting with a thought or a question before the previous speaker fully finishes. It does not cause confusion.\n3.  **Long Pauses:** There are no extended long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are consistently quick, usually 1 second or less between turns. For instance:\n    *   [00:13] A ends, [00:14] B starts (1 second pause).\n    *   [00:18] B ends, [00:19] A starts (1 second pause).\n    *   [00:25] B ends, [00:26] A starts (1 second pause).\n    *   All subsequent turns have 1-second pauses or are immediately consecutive.\nThese brief pauses are entirely acceptable and contribute to a natural pace of conversation. The dialogue feels spontaneous and engaged.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--652",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: What kind of music do you like to listen to?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: I listen to all sorts! My favorites include country, classical, and hip hop.\n[00:07 - 00:16] Speaker A: Wow! I really love hip hop too! I listen to pretty much everything except country. I wish I liked country, but I just don't connect with\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but what exactly is it about country music that you don't find appealing?\n[00:21 - 00:30] Speaker A: It's mostly the twangy sound and the themes that don't resonate with me. But I was going to say, hip hop has such a powerful beat and meaningful lyrics\n[00:29 - 00:39] Speaker B: Absolutely! The beats and rhythms in hip hop are incredible. But coming back to country music, have you tried listening to different sub-genres within country? Some might surprise you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and maintain logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A introduces the topic of music preferences. Speaker B responds directly by listing their favorites, including country and hip hop. Speaker A then expresses a shared interest in hip hop but a disinterest in country, attempting to explain why. Speaker B's interruptions, while present, are always logically tied to Speaker A's last statement. For example, Speaker B jumps in at [00:15] to ask for clarification about Speaker A's dislike of country, which is perfectly relevant to Speaker A's ongoing thought. Similarly, at [00:29], Speaker B acknowledges Speaker A's point about hip hop before explicitly redirecting the conversation back to country music by suggesting sub-genres. This shows active listening and a clear attempt to engage with and explore Speaker A's expressed opinions, even if Speaker B is persistent on one specific topic (country music). The conversation flows logically, even with the slight back-and-forth between hip hop and country, as Speaker B manages the topic shifts explicitly.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural flow. There are two instances of overlapping speech, specifically at [00:15] and [00:29]. In both cases, Speaker B initiates their turn while Speaker A is finishing a sentence. However, these overlaps are very brief (approximately 1 second each). Crucially, at [00:15], Speaker B explicitly acknowledges the overlap with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which indicates politeness and awareness, making the interruption less disruptive. The briefness of these overlaps suggests engaged, rather than rude or prolonged, interruptions. They do not hinder comprehension or the natural progression of the conversation. These brief, acknowledged overlaps are acceptable and contribute to the sense of a dynamic, real-time conversation rather than being harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--552",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I just had to take an abortion pill. Do you know much about it?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: I know about that! My girlfriend went through that. They pump you full of hormones to get you in a good mood. Then they give you\n[00:08 - 00:20] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I think there's a misunderstanding. The abortion pill doesn't involve a D&C procedure; it's actually a medication that causes the uterus to expel the pregnancy.\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B: Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying that. So, what was your experience like?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A initiates a sensitive topic, asking for information about the abortion pill. Speaker B's initial response (0:04 - 0:09) demonstrates a significant misunderstanding, conflating the abortion pill with a D&C procedure (\"They pump you full of hormones...\"). This introduces incorrect information and deviates from the specific topic of the *abortion pill*. However, Speaker A promptly identifies this misunderstanding (0:08 - 0:20) and provides a crucial correction, clarifying the nature of the abortion pill. Speaker B then acknowledges this correction (\"Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying that.\") and pivots to a relevant follow-up question (\"So, what was your experience like?\"). While Speaker B's initial response showed a lack of logical consistency with the specific topic, Speaker A's intervention and Speaker B's subsequent acknowledgment and relevant follow-up demonstrate good overall topic coherence and effective management of misinformation within the dialogue. The interaction successfully corrected a factual error and then moved forward.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is one extended overlap identified: Speaker A begins speaking at 0:08 while Speaker B is still speaking until 0:09. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness of the overlap. In this context, the interruption is functional and necessary to correct misinformation promptly. It's a brief overlap that serves to keep the conversation on track rather than being disruptive or unmanaged. No long pauses are observed between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are otherwise natural and timely (1-second gaps, which are acceptable).\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 5
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--10519",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, sorry I'm running late. I know you're probably in a hurry to get to\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: No worries, but what time is your meeting? Just want to make sure we're on track.\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: It's in about 30 minutes. My boss is going to be pissed if I'm late.\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: Oh, I see. Well, don't worry, we'll get you there on time. So, what do you do?\n[00:18 - 00:19] Speaker A: I work in marketing.\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B: That sounds like a pretty important job.\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker A: It is, but it's also a lot of pressure. I've got to come up with the next big thing, or my boss will be all over me, asking\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker B: Speaking of pressure, do you already have everything ready for your presentation?\n[00:33 - 00:41] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm going to present some ideas for a new campaign we're working on. Hopefully, my boss will like them and we can get started on it soon.\n[00:41 - 00:43] Speaker B: That sounds like a lot of work. Good luck!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates good logical consistency throughout. Each speaker's turn is a direct and appropriate response to the previous one. For example, Speaker B asks about the meeting time in response to Speaker A being late, and Speaker A provides the exact time.\n\nRegarding topic coherence, there is one slightly abrupt topic shift from Speaker B at [00:13 - 00:17] (\"So, what do you do?\") immediately after discussing the urgency of getting to the meeting on time. While not entirely incoherent (it's a common social question), it does momentarily shift away from the pressing concern. However, Speaker B skillfully brings the conversation back to the relevant topic of the meeting/presentation at [00:28 - 00:32] by using a transition phrase (\"Speaking of pressure\") that links it to Speaker A's previous statement about job pressure. This recovery ensures that the core topic remains central. Overall, there are no significant issues with relevance or coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency. There are no long pauses between speaker turns that would disrupt the flow of conversation. There is one brief overlap detected at [00:28 - 00:32], where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This is a very short overlap (approximately 1 second, between 00:28 and 00:29) and is considered a natural part of conversational turn-taking, falling within the acceptable range specified in the instructions (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\"). There are no prolonged or harmful overlapping turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--73094",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Well, there is this one boy that I like. His name is Nathan. He's really sweet and funny, and I just can't help but to be drawn to how he\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: Nathan? Wait, is he the same guy from your math class that you mentioned last week?\n[00:13 - 00:23] Speaker A: Yeah, that's him! We talk sometimes, but I don't know what he thinks of me. I'm too afraid to ask him directly. But I would really like to know... Maybe you could help me figure it out?\n[00:23 - 00:31] Speaker B: Okay, let me see if I can get some clues from how he acts around you then. Does he ever stare at you or try to make conversation with you more than he does\n[00:30 - 00:45] Speaker A: Oh! Now that you mention it, he actually does seem to stare at me a lot more than other people do. And we do have longer conversations than most people do too. So maybe he likes me back! Thanks for your help, I feel a lot better about this now!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial question about Nathan (00:07) directly refers to Speaker A's previous mention, demonstrating attentive listening and topic recall.\n- Speaker A's dilemma and request for help (00:13) are clear and directly address the established topic of Nathan.\n- Speaker B's follow-up questions (00:23) are highly relevant to Speaker A's request, providing concrete ways to gather clues about Nathan's feelings.\n- Speaker A's final response (00:30) directly answers Speaker B's questions and expresses a logical conclusion, along with gratitude for the assistance, showing a successful resolution to the initial problem.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses or logical inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are two brief overlaps:\n    - [00:07 - 00:08]: Speaker B starts speaking 1 second before Speaker A finishes. This is a very common and natural overlap in conversation, indicating active listening and anticipation.\n    - [00:30 - 00:31]: Speaker A starts speaking 1 second before Speaker B finishes. Again, this is a brief, natural overlap, common in fluid conversation.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and seamless, contributing to a natural conversational flow.\nThe brief overlaps are not prolonged and do not disrupt the understanding or flow of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--141986",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm so tired of always having to rely on other people for money. I want to be independent and make my own money.\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker B: Carah, you're always so motivated and driven. I admire that about you. What made you want to start selling products and services to achieve\n[00:14 - 00:25] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but I just wanted to say that it wasn't just about wanting control over my finances. I also wanted to prove to myself that I could succeed on my own terms.\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker B: That makes sense, and it's really inspiring. So, how has business been going for you?\n[00:30 - 00:42] Speaker A: It's been really good actually! I've been able to reach a lot of people with my products and services and I've made a lot of sales. It's been great being my own boss and making my own decisions without\n[00:41 - 00:48] Speaker B: Speaking of being your own boss, have you found it challenging to manage everything on your own, or has it been more rewarding than you expected?\n[00:49 - 01:04] Speaker A: It's definitely been a mix of both. Managing everything can be overwhelming at times, but the rewards far outweigh the challenges. I was going to mention that making my own money has also given me a sense of freedom I never had before.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous speaker's statement.\n- Speaker B's initial question at `[00:07 - 00:15]` directly follows Speaker A's expression of wanting independence and making money.\n- Speaker A's clarification at `[00:14 - 00:25]` elaborates on their motivation, directly relevant to Speaker B's question about why they started selling products.\n- Speaker B's follow-up question at `[00:25 - 00:30]` transitions smoothly from acknowledging A's inspiration to asking about the business's progress.\n- Speaker A's response at `[00:30 - 00:42]` directly answers how business has been going.\n- Speaker B's question at `[00:41 - 00:48]` picks up on Speaker A's phrase \"being my own boss\" and asks a relevant question about challenges vs. rewards.\n- Speaker A's final response at `[00:49 - 01:04]` directly addresses B's two-part question and adds a relevant point that ties back to the initial theme of freedom and independence.\nThe topic coherence is maintained throughout, focusing on Speaker A's journey to financial independence and entrepreneurship.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are no long pauses between turns that disrupt the flow of conversation.\n- There are two brief overlaps identified:\n    - At `[00:14 - 00:25]`: Speaker A starts speaking 1 second before Speaker B finishes. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating awareness and maintaining naturalness. This is a brief and acceptable overlap.\n    - At `[00:41 - 00:48]`: Speaker B starts speaking 1 second before Speaker A finishes. Speaker B's interjection \"Speaking of being your own boss\" directly latches onto Speaker A's unfinished sentence, creating a very natural, collaborative, and unproblematic overlap.\nBoth overlaps are brief (1 second) and do not appear to be \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" in a way that harms the conversation. They feel like natural conversational dynamics rather than disruptive interferences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--492",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm learning about a new branch of philosophy right now! It's called post-structuralism.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: That's interesting. What does it have to do with the way\n[00:07 - 00:22] Speaker A: Sorry to cut you off, I just wanted to clarify that post-structuralism challenges traditional ideas of fixed meaning in texts and realities. I'm studying Michel Foucault. His ideas about subjectivity and power relations are really fascinating.\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker B: I might be able to get you the audiobook of Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison. I have it, but I haven't had the\n[00:29 - 00:38] Speaker A: Oh, that would be fantastic! By the way, I was going to ask, what specifically were you curious about regarding post-structuralism?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Speaker A introduces a topic, Speaker B asks a relevant follow-up question. Speaker A elaborates directly on their initial point, providing context and an example (Foucault). Speaker B's offer of an audiobook by Foucault is highly relevant to the discussion. Speaker A accepts the offer and, importantly, remembers to circle back to Speaker B's initial, interrupted question, showing excellent conversational recall and commitment to the interaction's flow. All turns are logically consistent and contribute to the topic's coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are two instances of overlapping speech.\n1.  `[00:07 - 00:22] Speaker A:` overlaps with `[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B:`. The overlap duration is 1 second (00:07-00:08). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges cutting off Speaker B (\"Sorry to cut you off\").\n2.  `[00:29 - 00:38] Speaker A:` overlaps with `[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker B:`. The overlap duration is 1 second (00:29-00:30). Speaker B is cut off mid-sentence.\n\nAccording to the scoring criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" Both overlaps are brief (1 second). While Speaker B is cut off twice by Speaker A, and Speaker A only acknowledges it once, the brevity of the overlaps and the overall continuous flow of the conversation suggest that interactional fluency is maintained. There are no long pauses. The conversation progresses naturally without significant disruption.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--369",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Good evening. How many people of your party?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Three. Two adults and one kid.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker A: For buffet?\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: Yes. How much do you charge for it?\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker A: Thirty for each adult, twenty each kid.\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker B: I see. Where can I get the drinks and\n[00:15 - 00:25] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I just realized I didn't ask—do we need to reserve a table in advance, or is it first-come, first-served?\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker B: It's first-come, first-served. But let me finish—where can I get the food?\n[00:30 - 00:37] Speaker A: Oh, right! Please go to the tables over there for cold dishes and vegetables. The hot dishes are on the other side.\n[00:37 - 00:40] Speaker B: Do I need to pay extra charges for drinks like cola and juice?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with logical consistency and topic coherence, establishing the party size, service type (buffet), and pricing. However, a significant breakdown occurs in Speaker A's turn from `[00:15 - 00:25]`. Speaker B is in the middle of asking \"Where can I get the drinks and...\", which is a relevant follow-up to the buffet topic. Speaker A then interjects with a completely new question about reservations (\"do we need to reserve a table in advance, or is it first-come, first-served?\"). This question is highly out of place, as the initial setup (party size, buffet choice, and price) suggests the party is already being processed or is about to enter. This abrupt topic shift severely lacks logical consistency and topic coherence, forcing Speaker B to answer an irrelevant question before being able to re-ask their original, relevant one. Speaker A's subsequent \"Oh, right!\" acknowledges their previous derailment, but the disruption to logical flow is undeniable.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe initial turns exhibit good interactional fluency with appropriate turn-taking. However, a major issue arises at `[00:15 - 00:25]`. Speaker A explicitly states \"Sorry to jump in,\" indicating an awareness of interrupting. More critically, Speaker A's interruption is not brief but extends into a prolonged overlapping turn (10 seconds) during which they ask a full, multi-part question while Speaker B was still speaking (`[00:14 - 00:16]`). This extended overlap forces Speaker B to halt their sentence and wait, demonstrably breaking the flow of conversation. Speaker B's subsequent remark, \"But let me finish—where can I get the food?\", explicitly highlights the disruptive nature of Speaker A's extended interruption. There are no noticeable long pauses between speaker turns. The issue is purely with the prolonged, disruptive overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--141472",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, how are you feeling today?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm feeling a lot better, thank you.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: Good, I'm glad to hear that. How's your headache now?\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry, I just remembered, have you taken your medication for the day?\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: Oh yes, I took it earlier this morning. But as I was saying, my head is throbbing a little bit, but the painkillers are helping.\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker B: Do you need anything else? Some water or food?\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker A: No, I'm good. Thanks for taking care of me.\n[00:25 - 00:28] Speaker B: No problem, I just want you to get better.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally demonstrates good response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates by asking about Speaker B's well-being, and Speaker B responds directly. Speaker A then follows up on a specific ailment (headache), indicating prior knowledge.\n\nThe only point of slight deviation in coherence occurs at [00:07 - 00:11] where Speaker B, instead of answering Speaker A's question about their own headache, abruptly shifts the topic to Speaker A's medication with \"Sorry, I just remembered, have you taken your medication for the day?\". While the \"Sorry, I just remembered\" attempts to mitigate the abruptness, it does break the immediate flow of topic coherence. However, Speaker A handles this well by first addressing B's question and then skillfully bringing the conversation back to their own condition with \"But as I was saying, my head is throbbing...\". Subsequent turns are highly relevant, with Speaker B showing concern and Speaker A responding appropriately. This indicates that while there was a minor hiccup in topic coherence by Speaker B, it was quickly recovered, and the overall interaction remained logically consistent within a caregiving dynamic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There is one brief overlap identified at [00:07 - 00:11] where Speaker B starts speaking at 00:07 while Speaker A's turn ends at 00:08. This 1-second overlap is very brief and common in natural conversation, especially when one speaker is interjecting or remembering something as indicated by Speaker B's \"Sorry, I just remembered.\" It does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap. There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns, contributing to a natural and flowing conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--39098",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much. Just getting things done. You?\n[00:03 - 00:11] Speaker A: Yeah, same here. I just made a to-do list for the day and I'm starting with the most important task, so\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: Speaking of important tasks, do you prioritize based on deadlines or difficulty?\n[00:15 - 00:27] Speaker A: I actually prioritize by difficulty first. It makes me feel like I'm accomplishing something when I get the harder stuff out of the way. Plus, the rest of the day seems more manageable,\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker B: Easier, right? I totally get that. I think I'm going to try that myself! Thanks for the advice.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance throughout the dialogue is excellent.\n- Speaker B's initial response \"Not much. Just getting things done. You?\" is a direct and appropriate reply to Speaker A's \"Hey, what's up?\", maintaining a casual conversational tone.\n- Speaker A's follow-up \"Yeah, same here. I just made a to-do list for the day and I'm starting with the most important task, so\" logically builds upon B's statement about \"getting things done\" and shares relevant personal information.\n- Speaker B's next turn, \"Speaking of important tasks, do you prioritize based on deadlines or difficulty?\", demonstrates strong topic coherence. It directly picks up on Speaker A's mention of \"most important task\" and asks a relevant, deepening question about the process.\n- Speaker A's detailed explanation of their prioritization method is a direct and thorough answer to Speaker B's question.\n- Speaker B's concluding remarks (\"Easier, right? I totally get that. I think I'm going to try that myself! Thanks for the advice.\") show active listening, comprehension, and a natural conclusion to the mini-discussion, expressing agreement and gratitude.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses, logical inconsistencies, or abrupt topic shifts. The conversation flows very naturally and coherently.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The conversation moves at a natural, brisk pace.\n- There are two brief overlaps:\n    - At [00:10 - 00:15], Speaker B starts speaking at 00:10 while Speaker A finishes at 00:11. This is a 1-second overlap.\n    - At [00:26 - 00:32], Speaker B starts speaking at 00:26 while Speaker A finishes at 00:27. This is also a 1-second overlap.\nAccording to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" These 1-second overlaps are brief and are typical in natural, engaged conversation, where one speaker might anticipate the end of the other's turn or chime in quickly. They do not constitute \"prolonged overlapping turns\" and do not hinder the flow or understanding of the dialogue.\nOverall, the turn-taking is efficient and natural, contributing to excellent fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--81773",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, how are you doing?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Not too great. I'm just feeling really down lately.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm so sorry to hear that. What's going on? Is\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker B: Sorry to cut you off, but it's just been overwhelming, you know? Everything just seems so hopeless right now. I don't know if things will ever get better.\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker A: Hey, it's going to be okay. I'm here for you, no matter what. We'll get through this together, okay?\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B: Thank you, Zaryah. Just knowing you're here for me makes me feel a little\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker A: Can I ask, have you talked to anyone else about this? Maybe it would help to get some different perspectives.\n[00:31 - 00:38] Speaker B: I haven't really opened up to anyone else yet, but just talking to you is already helping a bit. Thanks for being here for me, Zaryah.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn is logically consistent with the previous one, and the conversation maintains clear topic coherence from start to finish. Speaker B expresses distress, Speaker A offers empathy and support, Speaker B expresses gratitude, Speaker A offers a suggestion, and Speaker B responds to the suggestion while reiterating gratitude. There are no instances of abrupt topic shifts or nonsensical replies. The responses are appropriate for a supportive conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the pauses observed are either 0 seconds or 1 second, which are natural and contribute to the conversational rhythm. There are two instances of brief overlaps. The first overlap ([00:07 - 00:14] Speaker B starting while Speaker A is still talking) is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Sorry to cut you off\"), indicating conversational awareness. The second overlap ([00:25 - 00:31] Speaker A starting while Speaker B is still talking) is brief (1 second) and occurs naturally as Speaker A introduces a new thought after Speaker B's sentence trails off. Neither overlap is prolonged or harmful; instead, they reflect a dynamic and engaged exchange, typical of natural human conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--611",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I'm making a beef stew for dinner tonight. Do you want to have\n[00:02 - 00:08] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but do you need any help with the preparation? I can chop vegetables or anything else you need.\n[00:09 - 00:19] Speaker A: That would be great, thanks! I'd love some help with the vegetables. By the way, do you have any preferences for the stew, like adding extra spices or trying a\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B: Oh, adding some extra spices sounds fantastic! Maybe a bit of paprika or thyme?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong **Response Relevance**.\n*   **[00:02 - 00:08] Speaker B**'s response is highly relevant, directly addressing Speaker A's statement about making dinner by offering help with preparation. This shows engagement and logical progression.\n*   **[00:09 - 00:19] Speaker A** then accepts Speaker B's offer, which is logically consistent. Speaker A then smoothly transitions to a related sub-topic (preferences for the stew), maintaining topic coherence.\n*   **[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B** directly responds to Speaker A's question about preferences, picking up on the \"extra spices\" idea and providing specific examples, which demonstrates strong listening and topical coherence.\nThe conversation flows naturally from topic to sub-topic without any deviations or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe **Interactional Fluency** is very good.\n*   There are two brief overlaps: **[00:02 - 00:08] Speaker B** overlaps for 1 second with Speaker A's cut-off sentence, and **[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B** overlaps for 1 second with Speaker A's cut-off sentence. The prompt states that \"brief overlaps... are acceptable.\" These overlaps are indeed brief and do not hinder comprehension or the flow of conversation; rather, they suggest eagerness or engagement from Speaker B. Speaker B even politely acknowledges the first overlap (\"Sorry to interrupt\").\n*   There are no long pauses. The transition between Speaker B's first turn and Speaker A's second turn has a 1-second gap ([00:08] to [00:09]), which is a natural, small pause in conversation.\nOverall, the pacing feels natural and conversational, without any disruptive extended overlaps or prolonged silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--142072",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, I fixed that light! It's been bugging me for a while\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but did you have to replace any parts, or was it just a wiring issue?\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: Just a wiring issue, thankfully! Anyway, how have you been?\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker B: Oh, I've been good, just busy with work. How about you?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or logically follows the preceding statement.\n- Speaker B's first response (\"Sorry to interrupt, but did you have to replace any parts, or was it just a wiring issue?\") is a direct and relevant follow-up question to Speaker A's announcement about fixing the light. It shows engagement with the topic.\n- Speaker A's subsequent response (\"Just a wiring issue, thankfully! Anyway, how have you been?\") first answers B's question directly and concisely, then smoothly transitions to a common conversational topic of general well-being. This is a natural and logical shift in informal conversation.\n- Speaker B's final response (\"Oh, I've been good, just busy with work. How about you?\") directly answers A's new question and reciprocates, maintaining the conversational flow and demonstrating active listening and participation.\nThe topics flow coherently, even with the shift, and there are no instances of irrelevant or off-topic responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There is a brief overlap between [00:02 - 00:03] where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing. However, Speaker B immediately mitigates this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" indicating awareness and politeness. This is a brief, natural overlap that does not hinder understanding or flow, aligning with the acceptable \"brief overlaps\" mentioned in the criteria.\n- The pause between Speaker B's turn ending at [00:07] and Speaker A's turn beginning at [00:08] is only 1 second, which is a natural, brief pause for turn-taking and processing, not a prolonged one.\n- The transition between Speaker A's turn ending at [00:13] and Speaker B's turn beginning at [00:13] is immediate, showing smooth and efficient turn-taking.\nThere are no long pauses or prolonged, disruptive overlaps that would negatively impact the interaction's naturalness or fluency. The rhythm of the conversation feels authentic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--496",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:12] Speaker A: Hey, Charlie, do you want to come to my house after school and play video games with me? I just got a cool new game. We will go pick up my dad at the airport at 6:00 but you can stay for 2 hours.\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: Sure, Jack. I just have to finish my homework first. What's the game that you were talking\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker A: Oh, it's this game where you create your own character. You can choose how you look and dress and act.\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker B: That sounds really interesting. But wait, did you say you have to pick up your dad at 6:00? I was wondering, how are we getting to the airport?\n[00:31 - 00:41] Speaker A: Oh, don't worry about that. My mom will drive us. But back to the game, it's really different from anything I've played before. Have you ever tried something like this?\n[00:42 - 00:48] Speaker B: No, I haven't. It sounds like a unique experience. By the way, you mentioned something about the game earlier—what's the name of it?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance.\n*   **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B accepts Speaker A's invitation, asks a relevant follow-up question, and then clarifies a detail about the airport pickup, which was initially mentioned by Speaker A. Speaker A answers the clarification question and then smoothly redirects back to the game, as it's the primary topic of the invitation. Speaker B then reiterates a previous question about the game's name, which Speaker A had not yet provided, making it a very logical and consistent follow-up.\n*   **Topic Coherence:** The conversation maintains good topic coherence. The primary topic is the video game and the invitation to play, with a secondary, but important, logistical detail about picking up dad. Speakers manage topic shifts smoothly, addressing the logistical detail and then returning to the game discussion without abruptness or loss of focus. The repeated inquiry about the game's name is coherent given that Speaker A has described the game but not named it.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent fluency.\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap between [00:17 - 00:18] where Speaker A begins their turn slightly before Speaker B finishes theirs. This is a 1-second overlap. According to the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This particular overlap is very short and typical of natural, enthusiastic conversation rather than a disruptive, extended overlap. It suggests active listening and eagerness to respond.\n*   **Long Pauses:** There are no instances of long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are quick, typically 0-1 second, which is indicative of a natural and flowing conversation. For example, Speaker A's turn at [00:17] begins while B is still speaking briefly, and B's turn at [00:24] follows A's at [00:23] with only a 1-second gap. Similarly, A's turn at [00:31] starts immediately after B's at [00:31], and B's turn at [00:42] follows A's at [00:41] with a 1-second gap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--25865",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: This is bad. This is really bad.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: What's happening?\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker A: We're skidding out of control on the icy road. I can't turn the wheel. We're headed straight for a tree. I'm\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: What? What can I do? Should I try to pull the handbrake or something?\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker A: No, don't touch anything! Just hold on tight!\n[00:18 - 00:19] Speaker B: This is terrifying!\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker A: I know! I'm trying to do something, but it's not working. The\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B: Are we going to hit the tree? Oh my god, we're going to hit it, aren't we?\n[00:27 - 00:29] Speaker A: I know! Hold on tight!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn is a direct, logical, and coherent reaction to the preceding statement or the unfolding crisis. Speaker B's initial \"What's happening?\" is a natural inquiry to Speaker A's distress. Speaker A then provides a clear, concise, and terrifying explanation. Speaker B's suggestions and expressions of fear are perfectly aligned with the dire situation, and Speaker A's urgent instructions and acknowledgements maintain a consistent focus on the immediate danger. There are no off-topic remarks, misunderstandings, or illogical jumps in conversation. The topic (a car skidding out of control towards a tree) is maintained throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is also excellent. The conversation moves at a rapid pace, which is highly appropriate for a high-stress, emergency situation. There are a few brief overlaps (e.g., [00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A's last second of speech, and [00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A's last second of speech), but these are short (approximately 1 second each) and contribute to the sense of urgency and panic, rather than hindering communication. They reflect natural interjections or rapid-fire questioning/responding under duress, which is a characteristic of natural, urgent speech. There are no long pauses that would disrupt the flow or indicate a breakdown in turn-taking. The rhythm of the conversation feels authentic to the scenario.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--67378",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:10] Speaker A: That's really inspiring. I can definitely see how your passion for stories has translated into your writing. What do you think is the most important aspect of creating a\n[00:09 - 00:18] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but before we go deeper into that, I was curious—when you decided to share your stories with a wider audience, did you ever face any doubts or challenges?\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker A: Oh, absolutely. There were definitely moments of self-doubt, especially when I was just starting out. But I think those challenges actually pushed me to be more honest in my writing. To write from a place of authenticity and vulnerability. Because that's what connects us as human beings. When we read something and we can see ourselves in it, it feels like we're not alone in the world. It's like the author is speaking directly to us and understands us. And that connection is so powerful.\n[00:26 - 00:37] Speaker B: I completely agree. There is nothing more inspiring than reading something that feels like it was written just for you. It makes you feel seen and understood. And that's what we all crave, to be seen and understood.\n[00:38 - 00:41] Speaker A: Absolutely. So, what about you? What inspires you?\n[00:41 - 00:48] Speaker B: For me, it's all about making a difference in the world. I want to use my platform to inspire people and make a positive impact on the world.\n[00:49 - 01:00] Speaker A: That's amazing. I think we need more people like you in the world who are using their voices to make a difference. Thank you for being an inspiration to me and to so many others.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance, logical consistency, and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial interruption (\"Sorry to jump in, but before we go deeper into that...\") is explicitly acknowledged and serves to shift the focus to a related personal experience (doubts/challenges in sharing stories) before delving into the original question's \"aspect of creating writing.\" This is a natural conversational flow, where one point leads to a related, perhaps more pressing, thought. Speaker A responds directly and elaborates on this new topic with authenticity. Speaker B's follow-up (\"I completely agree...\") is a direct affirmation and expansion of Speaker A's sentiment. Speaker A then naturally pivots back to a general, open-ended question (\"So, what about you? What inspires you?\"), which Speaker B answers directly. The conversation concludes with Speaker A acknowledging Speaker B's contribution. All turns are contextually appropriate and build upon previous statements, maintaining a coherent and engaging discussion.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits excellent interactional fluency. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a dynamic and engaged conversation. There is one brief, extended overlap at [0:09 - 0:10] where Speaker B begins speaking just as Speaker A finishes their sentence. However, Speaker B explicitly addresses this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the overlap natural and polite, rather than disruptive or harmful. This brief, acknowledged overlap is a common and acceptable feature of natural conversation, demonstrating eagerness to contribute without being rude. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--606",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Do you follow Nine Inch Nails?\n[00:02 - 00:09] Speaker B: No, I'm more into classic rock. I listen to a lot of songs from the Rolling Stones. How do you think they'll do next year in\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I just remembered, did you hear about their recent tour announcement?\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker B: No, I didn't! That's exciting. But back to your question, I really don't know. Do you think they'll release a new album?\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker A: I don't know. But I'm hoping they will! By the way, I was going to ask earlier, how do you think they'll do next year?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B initially answers Speaker A's question about Nine Inch Nails, then attempts to introduce the Rolling Stones. Speaker A then interjects, bringing the conversation back to Nine Inch Nails with a relevant follow-up question about their tour. Speaker B responds appropriately to this new question, and then asks a relevant follow-up about Nine Inch Nails. Finally, Speaker A answers Speaker B's question and re-introduces a question about Nine Inch Nails' future performance, which echoes Speaker B's earlier cut-off question about the Rolling Stones. While there's a slight conversational tug-of-war over which band to discuss, the responses are always logically connected to the immediate preceding turn or to one of the main topics (Nine Inch Nails or a brief mention of Rolling Stones). The topic coherence is maintained around the general theme of music and bands.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There is one brief overlap at [00:08 - 00:09] where Speaker A starts talking while Speaker B is still speaking. However, this is a very short (1-second) overlap, and Speaker A explicitly acknowledges it with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which mitigates its negative impact and makes it feel natural rather than disruptive. There is also a small, acceptable pause of 1 second between Speaker B's turn ending at [00:20] and Speaker A's turn beginning at [00:21]. Neither the overlap nor the pause are prolonged or harmful; they fall within the acceptable range for natural conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--635",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hello, Bob! How are you doing?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm doing good, Alice! You seem excited about something.\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Yes, I am. I'm going mountain biking today, and I just got a new helmet that\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but what kind of bike did you get? I'm really into biking gear.\n[00:16 - 00:25] Speaker A: I got a mountain bike with full suspension. It's really cool! I don't know if you're interested in doing this activity, but it sounds like a great\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: Actually, I love biking! Are you planning to go on a trail?\n[00:28 - 00:36] Speaker A: I might go on a trail, but it depends on how much I want to exert myself. I want to be able to climb uphill without stopping.\n[00:36 - 00:38] Speaker B: Well, good luck! I'll be rooting for you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A introduces a topic (mountain biking, new helmet), and Speaker B's first response, while an interruption, is directly relevant to the core topic (\"what kind of bike did you get? I'm really into biking gear.\"). This shows engagement and topic coherence. Speaker A then answers the question about the bike. Speaker A's subsequent question \"I don't know if you're interested in doing this activity\" is directly addressed by Speaker B (\"Actually, I love biking!\"). Speaker B's follow-up question (\"Are you planning to go on a trail?\") is also highly relevant to the activity. Speaker A answers this and elaborates on their goal. Finally, Speaker B offers a relevant closing remark of encouragement. The conversation flows naturally from one turn to the next, maintaining a clear and consistent topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction shows good fluency. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  **[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B:** This overlaps with Speaker A's turn by 1 second ([00:11 - 00:12]). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and is a natural conversational repair mechanism. This type of brief, acknowledged interruption is acceptable and often indicative of high engagement.\n2.  **[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B:** This overlaps with Speaker A's turn by 1 second ([00:24 - 00:25]). Speaker B's response (\"Actually, I love biking!\") is an enthusiastic and direct reply to Speaker A's implied question about interest. This brief overlap demonstrates active listening and eagerness, rather than being a disruptive \"prolonged overlapping turn.\"\n\nGiven that the prompt states \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" these brief, contextually appropriate overlaps do not detract from the overall fluency or naturalness of the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--163",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Ernie, I'm really excited about starting this band together. We're going to be the two coolest students on campus once\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to cut you off, but have you thought about what kind of music we should play? It's pretty important to decide that early on.\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: That's a good point. You know I love hip hop, so maybe we can play some Vanilla Ice songs.\n[00:20 - 00:30] Speaker B: Hmm. . . Vanilla Ice? I know his most famous song, 'Ice Ice Baby,' but I don't know his other songs. By the way, what were you saying earlier about us being the coolest students on campus?\n[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker A: Oh right, I was just saying we're going to be the two coolest students on campus once we start this band.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates with excitement about starting a band and their perceived coolness. Speaker B's interruption to ask about music genre is highly relevant to the stated goal of forming a band, showing a practical approach. Speaker A's suggestion of Vanilla Ice is a direct and logical response to B's question. Speaker B then acknowledges A's suggestion and smoothly transitions back to A's initial point about being \"coolest students,\" explicitly referencing the earlier topic rather than introducing a completely new one. This shows strong topic coherence and an ability to manage multiple threads within the conversation. Speaker A's final response clarifies the initial statement, completing the circle of the secondary topic. All turns contribute meaningfully and logically to the ongoing conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural. There is one brief overlap: Speaker B starts speaking at [00:06] while Speaker A is still speaking until [00:07]. This is a 1-second overlap, which is considered a \"brief overlap\" and acceptable, especially since Speaker B explicitly apologizes (\"Sorry to cut you off\"). There are small pauses between turns, such as 1-second pauses between [00:19] and [00:20], and [00:30] and [00:31]. These are \"small pauses\" and are natural in conversation, indicating thought or a brief breath. There are no prolonged pauses or extended overlaps that would disrupt the flow of communication. The dialogue feels organic and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--112005",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: What the hell do you think you're doing? I\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to hurt you.\n[00:03 - 00:11] Speaker A: You didn't mean to hurt me? Are you kidding me? You just had sex with another woman right in front of me! How could you even think\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: I don't know, it just happened. I wasn't thinking.\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: Obviously not, because if you were thinking, you would have realized how much this would hurt me.\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker B: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to hurt you. I love you.\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker A: But obviously not enough to keep your hands off other women. Get out of my sight. I never want to see you again.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker A's responses consistently reflect anger, hurt, and accusations directly related to Speaker B's infidelity. For example, Speaker A's \"You didn't mean to hurt me? Are you kidding me? You just had sex with another woman right in front of me!\" is a direct, emotional, and logical follow-up to Speaker B's apology. Speaker B's replies, while apologetic and self-excusing (\"I'm sorry, I didn't mean to hurt you,\" \"it just happened. I wasn't thinking.\"), are also directly relevant to the accusations and the emotional context. The conversation maintains clear topic coherence, revolving entirely around the infidelity and its immediate emotional fallout. There are no illogical jumps or irrelevant statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is highly natural and appropriate for the context of a heated, emotional argument. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1. `[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to hurt you.` overlapping with `[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: What the hell do you think you're doing? I` (1 second overlap). This brief overlap indicates Speaker B's immediate, perhaps desperate, attempt to apologize while Speaker A is still expressing their initial shock/anger.\n2. `[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: I don't know, it just happened. I wasn't thinking.` overlapping with `[00:03 - 00:11] Speaker A: ...How could you even think` (1 second overlap). This again shows Speaker B interjecting quickly to explain or defend themselves as Speaker A is still mid-sentence, typical in high-tension exchanges.\nThese overlaps are brief (1 second each) and do not qualify as \"extended overlaps\" that would hinder understanding or disrupt flow. Instead, they enhance the realism of an emotional confrontation. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the replies are consistently prompt, reflecting the urgency and intensity of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--260",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, How's it going?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not good. I lost my wallet.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: Oh, that's too bad. Was it somewhere you\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to cut you off, but I just remembered—did you try calling the taxi company to see if they found it?\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: Not yet, I was actually about to ask if I could borrow some money first.\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker B: Of course, how much do you need?\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker A: About 50 dollars.\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker B: That's no problem. Here you are.\n[00:23 - 00:25] Speaker A: Thanks. I'll pay you back on Friday.\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker B: That'll be fine. By the way, were you going to ask if I thought it was stolen earlier?\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker A: Oh, right! No, I don't think it was stolen. I think it came out of my pocket when I was in the taxi.\n[00:36 - 00:38] Speaker B: Got it. So, what are you going to do now?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n*   **Initial Setup:** Speaker B's \"Not good. I lost my wallet\" is a direct and relevant response to Speaker A's \"How's it going?\".\n*   **Problem-solving/Information Seeking:** Speaker A's follow-up \"Oh, that's too bad. Was it somewhere you...\" is relevant to understanding the situation.\n*   **Self-correction/Prioritization:** Speaker B's interruption, while cutting Speaker A off, is immediately followed by an apology and a highly relevant question (\"did you try calling the taxi company?\") concerning the lost wallet, indicating a sudden realization of a potential solution. This shows logical thought process from Speaker B.\n*   **Needs-based Relevance:** Speaker A's pivot to borrowing money (\"Not yet, I was actually about to ask if I could borrow some money first.\") is a direct and logical consequence of losing the wallet (and presumably its contents). Speaker B's subsequent questions about amount and offering the money are perfectly relevant.\n*   **Resolution and Recall:** Speaker A's \"Thanks. I'll pay you back on Friday\" concludes the immediate financial transaction. Speaker B's \"By the way, were you going to ask if I thought it was stolen earlier?\" shows excellent recall and politeness, bringing the conversation back to Speaker A's original, interrupted question, thus maintaining topic coherence over turns. Speaker A's response directly addresses this.\n*   **Concluding Relevance:** Speaker B's final \"Got it. So, what are you going to do now?\" appropriately shifts back to the core problem of the lost wallet and next steps, maintaining the overall topic flow.\n\nOverall, the conversation flows naturally with logical connections between turns, even when an interruption occurs, as it is mitigated by politeness and later recall.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good, demonstrating natural conversational dynamics.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The timestamps indicate quick back-and-forth exchanges, typical of a fluent conversation (e.g., [00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B, then [00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A).\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one clear overlap:\n    *   `[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: Oh, that's too bad. Was it somewhere you`\n    *   `[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to cut you off, but I just remembered—did you try calling the taxi company to see if they found it?`\n    This overlap occurs for approximately 1 second (from 00:06 to 00:07). While it is an interruption, Speaker B immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to cut you off\"). This explicit acknowledgment and apology mitigate the \"harmful\" aspect of the overlap. It makes the interaction feel more natural, indicating a sudden thought or realization rather than a disruptive or disrespectful interjection. According to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this falls into that category, especially given the immediate apology which handles the interactional disruption gracefully. It does not lead to confusion or a breakdown in communication.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--5",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: This Olympic park is so big!\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yes. Now we are in the Olympic stadium, the center of this park.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: Splendid! When is it gonna be finished?\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: The whole stadium is to be finished this summer, just\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but do you know if the seating arrangement will be accessible for people with disabilities?\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker B: Yes, there will be accessible seating areas. But I was just about to say it'll be finished this June. How many seats are there in the stand?\n[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker A: Oh, there are 5000 seats in total.\n[00:29 - 00:31] Speaker B: I didn't know it would be so big!\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker A: It is! Look there, those are the tracks. And the jumping pit is over there.\n[00:36 - 00:39] Speaker B: Ah... I see. Hey, look the sign here, No climbing.\n[00:39 - 00:43] Speaker A: We put many signs with English translations for foreign visitors.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong **Response Relevance**. All turns are logically consistent and maintain topic coherence. Speaker B's initial response (00:02-00:06) directly addresses Speaker A's observation and provides context. Speaker A's question (00:06-00:09) is a natural follow-up. Although Speaker A interrupts (00:12-00:18), the new question about accessibility is highly relevant to the context of a stadium under discussion. Speaker B handles this very well (00:18-00:25) by first answering the new question and then completing their interrupted thought, demonstrating excellent logical consistency and coherence. Subsequent turns continue to build on the discussion of the stadium's features (seats, tracks, signs), maintaining a coherent flow throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe **Interactional Fluency** is largely appropriate and natural. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. There is one brief overlap at [00:12 - 00:13] where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing a sentence. However, this overlap is very short (1 second) and Speaker A explicitly acknowledges it by saying \"Sorry to interrupt.\" Speaker B manages this interruption smoothly by addressing Speaker A's new question and then completing their original thought. Given the brevity of the overlap and the polite acknowledgment and effective management by both speakers, it does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlapping turn as per the evaluation criteria. Such brief, managed interruptions are common in natural conversation and do not significantly detract from the interaction's flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--89750",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, what's going on? Why is everyone wearing masks?\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: There's been an outbreak of a new virus and everyone is trying to prevent themselves from getting infected, especially\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker A: Wait, a new virus? How did it spread so quickly?\n[00:13 - 00:23] Speaker B: It's highly contagious, which is why it's spreading rapidly. The symptoms include fever, coughing, and difficulty breathing. Some people have also reported losing their sense of smell or taste, which\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker A: Losing their sense of smell or taste? That's really concerning. Is there a cure?\n[00:28 - 00:35] Speaker B: There's no cure yet, but scientists are working on it. In the meantime, the best thing we can do is to try to prevent ourselves from getting sick.\n[00:36 - 00:42] Speaker A: I see. Well, I'm definitely going to be more careful from now on. Thanks for the heads up.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B consistently provides direct and informative answers to Speaker A's questions. Speaker A's questions and reactions are always directly related to the information provided by Speaker B, demonstrating clear topic coherence. For example, Speaker A's question \"Wait, a new virus? How did it spread so quickly?\" logically follows Speaker B's mention of \"a new virus outbreak.\" Similarly, Speaker A's concern and follow-up question \"Losing their sense of smell or taste? That's really concerning. Is there a cure?\" are direct responses to the symptoms Speaker B listed. The conversation stays focused on the topic of the virus, its spread, symptoms, and prevention throughout. There are no instances of irrelevant responses or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two brief overlaps detected:\n1.  **[00:09 - 00:10]**: Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This is a very short overlap (1 second) and is typical of natural, enthusiastic conversation where one speaker anticipates the other's point or has a quick follow-up question. It does not disrupt the flow.\n2.  **[00:23 - 00:23]**: Speaker A starts almost immediately after Speaker B, indicating a smooth transition. This is an extremely brief overlap, almost simultaneous turn-taking, which contributes to a natural conversational rhythm rather than hindering it.\n\nThere are also two short pauses:\n1.  **[00:27 - 00:28]**: A 1-second pause before Speaker B's turn.\n2.  **[00:35 - 00:36]**: A 1-second pause before Speaker A's turn.\nThese pauses are brief and natural, allowing speakers time to process information and formulate their responses without creating any awkward silence or disrupting the conversational flow. Neither the overlaps nor the pauses are prolonged or disruptive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--62976",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: So, tell me again how much money you won? I can't believe it!\n[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker B: Well, the jackpot was worth $32 million and I took home just over half of that after taxes. So, in total, I've got about $16 million in\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A: Wait, $16 million? That's still a massive amount! What are you going to do first?\n[00:18 - 00:28] Speaker B: I'm not sure yet. I need to think about it carefully so that I make the best decision possible. I want to make sure that the money lasts for as long as possible and that it benefits us in the long run,\n[00:27 - 00:37] Speaker A: Absolutely, it's important to plan wisely. But have you thought about talking to a financial advisor? They could really help us figure out the best way to manage this.\n[00:38 - 00:45] Speaker B: That's a good idea. I was actually going to suggest that we look into getting some professional advice to help us make the most of this opportunity.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each turn logically follows the previous one, building a cohesive conversation.\n*   Speaker B's initial response (00:04-00:12) directly answers Speaker A's question about the money won.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up (00:12-00:17) acknowledges the amount and asks a relevant next question about future plans.\n*   Speaker B's explanation (00:18-00:28) directly addresses the question about future plans, emphasizing careful consideration.\n*   Speaker A's subsequent turn (00:27-00:37) shows active listening by agreeing with the need for wise planning and then offering a concrete, relevant suggestion (financial advisor).\n*   Speaker B's final response (00:38-00:45) acknowledges Speaker A's suggestion and confirms alignment, indicating the topic is mutually understood and progressed.\nThe topic remains consistent throughout, focusing on the lottery win and its management. There are no irrelevant shifts or logical inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n*   **Pauses:** The pauses between turns are consistently brief (e.g., 1 second between 00:03-00:04, 00:17-00:18, 00:37-00:38). These are natural and do not disrupt the flow of conversation.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap detected at 00:27-00:28, where Speaker A begins speaking one second before Speaker B finishes their turn. As per the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this specific instance indicates active engagement rather than disruption. It does not qualify as a \"prolonged\" or harmful overlap.\nOverall, the timing feels natural and contributes to a smooth, engaging dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--11683",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Mom.\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Hey, Dyllan. How are you doing?\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm doing all right. I'm just a little surprised that Dad is moving to a\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: I get that, Dyllan. It's a big change for all of us, but it's something we've been working through for a while now.\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker A: Yeah, I know. It's been a tough few weeks for us.\n[00:17 - 00:18] Speaker B: But we're going to be okay, right?\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A: Of course we are. We're a team, Dyllan. We'll get through this together, no\n[00:23 - 00:25] Speaker B: I'm just worried about you.\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker A: Don't worry about me, Dyllan. I'm a big girl. I can handle this.\n[00:30 - 00:33] Speaker B: Okay. If you're sure you're all right.\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker A: I am. And thank you for being so supportive. It means a lot to me.\n[00:39 - 00:41] Speaker B: Of course, Mom. I love you.\n[00:41 - 00:42] Speaker A: I love you too, Dyllan.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance.\n1.  **Logical consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B's initial query \"How are you doing?\" leads to Speaker A expressing surprise about the father's move. Speaker B's acknowledgment \"I get that, Dyllan\" and contextualization are perfectly logical responses to Speaker A's emotional state. Speaker B's concern \"I'm just worried about you,\" despite Speaker A's attempt at reassurance, is a natural and consistent emotional reaction in a supportive dynamic, not a logical inconsistency. The conversation consistently addresses the emotional impact of the father's move and the characters' support for each other.\n2.  **Topic coherence:** The conversation maintains a clear and coherent topic throughout: the father's move, its impact on the family, and the emotional support between mother and child. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n1.  **Extended overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps detected:\n    *   [00:07 - 00:08]: Speaker A is cut off by Speaker B. This is approximately a 1-second overlap.\n    *   [00:23 - 00:24]: Speaker A is cut off by Speaker B. This is approximately a 1-second overlap.\n    These overlaps are brief and appear to be natural instances of interjection, particularly given the emotional nature of the conversation. They do not constitute \"extended overlaps\" or \"prolonged overlapping turns\" that would be harmful to the conversation's flow or understanding. The prompt states that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\"\n2.  **Long pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses are minimal (e.g., 1 second between 0:18-0:19 and 0:38-0:39), which are natural and acceptable in conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--623",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey! What do you do for work?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: I'm an engineer. I work at a startup in San Francisco. I'm pretty much working on developing\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Oh wow. I want to go to Paris one day. Maybe I'll work part-time while I'm there.\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: You really should! It's such a great city. I've actually been to Paris a few times for\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker A: Wow, how exciting! Any tips?\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: My favorite part of the city is the Seine. I love to go for a walk and watch the sunset over the river.\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker A: How's San Francisco? Have you ever been to Yosemite?\n[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker B: I haven't been to Yosemite, but I've been to San Francisco a couple times. It's a cool place with some great restaurants.\n[00:37 - 00:40] Speaker A: That sounds great! Thanks for chatting!\n[00:40 - 00:43] Speaker B: You're welcome! Have a great day!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in **Response Relevance** and **logical consistency**, primarily due to Speaker A's contributions.\n\n*   **Turn 1 (A: \"What do you do for work?\") and Turn 2 (B: \"I'm an engineer. I work at a startup in San Francisco.\")**: This initial exchange is perfectly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's question.\n*   **Turn 3 (A: \"Oh wow. I want to go to Paris one day. Maybe I'll work part-time while I'm there.\")**: This is an abrupt and illogical topic shift. Speaker A jumps from Speaker B's work and location (San Francisco) to a personal desire to go to Paris. There is no clear contextual or logical link established, making this response irrelevant to the immediate preceding statement from Speaker B about their work in San Francisco.\n*   **Turn 4 (B: \"You really should! It's such a great city. I've actually been to Paris a few times for\") and Turn 5 (A: \"Wow, how exciting! Any tips?\"):** Speaker B successfully adapts to Speaker A's sudden topic shift, and Speaker A's subsequent question is relevant to the new Paris topic.\n*   **Turn 6 (B: \"My favorite part of the city is the Seine. I love to go for a walk and watch the sunset over the river.\"):** Speaker B provides a relevant tip as requested.\n*   **Turn 7 (A: \"How's San Francisco? Have you ever been to Yosemite?\")**: This is another highly problematic and illogical topic shift by Speaker A. The conversation has been focused on Paris for several turns, and Speaker A suddenly brings up San Francisco (which was only mentioned briefly in Speaker B's first turn) and then introduces Yosemite, an entirely new and unrelated topic. This severely breaks topic coherence and logical flow.\n*   **Turn 8 (B: \"I haven't been to Yosemite, but I've been to San Francisco a couple times. It's a cool place with some great restaurants.\")**: Speaker B again manages to respond relevantly to Speaker A's abrupt topic shift, trying to maintain some form of conversation.\n*   **Turn 9 (A: \"That sounds great! Thanks for chatting!\") and Turn 10 (B: \"You're welcome! Have a great day!\"):** The closing remarks are relevant to ending the conversation.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance**: Speaker A's frequent and unprompted topic shifts severely undermine the logical consistency and topic coherence of the dialogue. While Speaker B consistently tries to follow and respond relevantly to Speaker A's lead, the overall interaction suffers from these significant relevance issues.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good **Interactional Fluency**, with no problematic extended overlaps or long pauses.\n\n*   **[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A overlapping [00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B**: There's a 1-second overlap (00:06-00:07) where Speaker A starts (\"Oh wow\") while Speaker B is finishing (\"developing\"). This is a brief and natural overlap, often occurring in spontaneous conversation as speakers anticipate turn-taking or offer back-channeling.\n*   **[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker A overlapping [00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B**: There's another 1-second overlap (00:16-00:17) where Speaker A starts (\"Wow, how exciting!\") as Speaker B concludes their thought (\"a few times for\"). This is also brief and acceptable.\n*   **Pauses between turns**:\n    *   [00:29 - 00:30]: 1-second pause between Speaker A's question and Speaker B's response. This is a small, acceptable pause.\n    *   [00:36 - 00:37]: 1-second pause between Speaker B's response and Speaker A's closing. This is also a small, acceptable pause.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency**: The brief overlaps and small pauses observed are within the acceptable range for natural conversation and do not impede the flow of the interaction. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would be considered harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--70606",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I can't believe I lost. I was so sure that I was going to win this\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: I'm sorry to interrupt, but I just want to say that it's okay to feel disappointed. You put in an incredible amount of effort.\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: It's just that I feel like I let all my supporters down. They believed in me and I couldn't deliver the\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker B: I get that, but remember, your supporters believed in you because of who you are, not just for the outcome. They still stand by you.\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker A: You're right. It's just hard to accept right now, but knowing you're here helps.\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker B: I'm here for you, no matter what. We'll get through this together.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides empathetic, supportive, and logically consistent responses to Speaker A's expressions of disappointment and feelings of letting people down.\n*   Speaker A expresses sadness at losing. Speaker B immediately responds by validating the feeling and acknowledging Speaker A's effort. This is highly relevant and empathetic.\n*   Speaker A expresses feeling like they let supporters down. Speaker B directly addresses this by reframing the supporters' perspective, emphasizing their belief in Speaker A as a person, not just the outcome. This maintains topic coherence and offers comfort.\n*   Speaker A acknowledges Speaker B's help. Speaker B concludes by reaffirming their support and commitment to getting through it together. This maintains logical consistency and provides a supportive closure.\nThe conversation flows naturally, and each turn builds meaningfully on the previous one, showing strong topic coherence and logical progression.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency, with any overlaps and pauses falling within acceptable limits.\n*   **Overlaps:**\n    *   [00:03 - 00:04]: There is a 1-second overlap where Speaker B begins speaking (\"I'm sorry to interrupt...\") while Speaker A is finishing their thought. This is a brief overlap and is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"I'm sorry to interrupt\"), making it a natural and polite interjection rather than a disruptive one. It indicates a readiness to offer comfort.\n    *   [00:14 - 00:15]: There is another 1-second overlap where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing. This is also a brief overlap, suggesting a responsive and engaged listener eager to provide reassurance.\nBoth overlaps are brief (1 second) and do not appear to be \"prolonged\" or harmful; rather, they contribute to the natural, conversational flow, especially given the supportive nature of Speaker B's role.\n*   **Pauses:**\n    *   [00:26 - 00:27]: There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's last turn and Speaker B's final turn. This is a small and natural pause, allowing for processing and a brief moment before the final reassuring statement. It is not a \"long pause\" that would indicate awkwardness or a breakdown in conversation.\nOverall, the interactional fluency is natural and appropriate.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--60447",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Mom. I'm home.\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Hey, baby! I'm so glad you're home. How was your day? Did\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: The trip was good. I had a lot of fun, but I'm really happy to be back home with you guys.\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: We missed you too, sweetie. So what did you do while you were away?\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker A: I hung out with my friends, went to the beach, and just relaxed and\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker B: Oh, did you get a chance to visit that museum you mentioned before you left?\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker A: No, I didn't, actually. I was mostly exploring the city and just having fun with my friends.\n[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker B: That sounds like a lot of fun. I'm glad you had a good time, but I'm also glad you're home now.\n[00:33 - 00:35] Speaker A: Yeah, me too.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous turn.\n*   Speaker A's initial statement \"I'm home\" is met with Speaker B's warm greeting and a relevant question \"How was your day?\".\n*   Speaker A's answer about the trip being good and being happy to be home is acknowledged by Speaker B (\"We missed you too\") followed by a request for more detail (\"So what did you do while you were away?\").\n*   Speaker A lists activities, and Speaker B follows up with a specific, highly relevant question about the museum, indicating active listening and recall of prior conversation.\n*   Speaker A directly answers the museum question, and Speaker B responds empathetically, summarizing the enjoyment (\"That sounds like a lot of fun\") and reiterating happiness about A's return.\n*   Speaker A's final \"Yeah, me too\" is a concise and appropriate affirmation.\nThe topic coherence is excellent throughout, maintaining the theme of A's return home and the activities during their trip. There are no irrelevant turns or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are no long pauses between speaker turns that would indicate hesitation or an unnatural flow. There are a couple of very brief overlaps:\n*   [00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B's \"Did\" overlaps with Speaker A starting their sentence.\n*   [00:18 - 00:19] Speaker A's \"and\" (in a list) overlaps with Speaker B starting a question.\nThese overlaps are extremely short (less than 1 second each) and are characteristic of natural, enthusiastic, and engaged conversation, especially between close family members. They do not constitute \"extended overlaps\" that would be harmful or disrupt understanding. Neither speaker is significantly cut off, and the conversation flows smoothly without any awkward silences or interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--60554",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, Mom. I don't feel so good. I think I'm going to vomit.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Oh, no! What's wrong?\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker A: I don't know. I've just been feeling really nauseous for the past few hours, and\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B: Wait, have you eaten anything today?\n[00:13 - 00:14] Speaker A: No, not yet.\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker B: Well, maybe you're just hungry then. Let's go make you something to eat and see if that helps.\n[00:20 - 00:21] Speaker A: Okay.\n[00:21 - 00:23] Speaker B: That didn't help. I still feel really sick.\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: Are you sure? Maybe you should try lying down for a little while and see if that helps calm\n[00:29 - 00:33] Speaker B: Actually, do you think it could be something you ate yesterday? Maybe it's food poisoning?\n[00:34 - 00:42] Speaker A: I hadn't thought of that... But yeah, it could be. I'll try lying down for a bit and see if that helps. Thanks, Mom.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue begins with a clear establishment of roles: Speaker A is a child feeling sick, and Speaker B is the mother.\n- [00:00 - 00:06]: Speaker A states the problem, and Speaker B responds with concern and asks for more details. This is logically consistent and coherent.\n- [00:06 - 00:12]: Speaker A provides details, and Speaker B asks a relevant diagnostic question about eating. This maintains coherence.\n- [00:13 - 00:19]: Speaker A answers, and Speaker B suggests a logical solution (eating) based on the information. This continues to be coherent.\n\n**However, significant issues arise from [00:21] onwards:**\n- [00:21 - 00:23] Speaker B: \"That didn't help. I still feel really sick.\" This is a severe logical inconsistency. Speaker B is the mother, not the one feeling sick. Speaker A (the child) is the one who was supposed to try eating, and thus Speaker A should be reporting on their symptoms. This implies a complete role reversal or a misattribution of speakers.\n- [00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: \"Are you sure? Maybe you should try lying down for a little while and see if that helps calm\" Following the previous inconsistency, Speaker A (the sick child) is now questioning Speaker B's (the mother's) symptoms and suggesting a remedy *to the mother*. This further reinforces the logical breakdown and role reversal. The sick child should be receiving advice, not giving it to their caregiver.\n- [00:29 - 00:33] Speaker B: \"Actually, do you think it could be something you ate yesterday? Maybe it's food poisoning?\" Speaker B, who just claimed to be sick, now suggests food poisoning *to Speaker A*. This contradicts B's previous statement and attempts to re-establish the original dynamic, but the immediate preceding turns make the conversation illogical.\n- [00:34 - 00:42] Speaker A: \"I hadn't thought of that... But yeah, it could be. I'll try lying down for a bit and see if that helps. Thanks, Mom.\" Here, Speaker A finally acts as the sick child, accepting advice and planning to lie down. This turn is consistent with the initial setup, but it stands in stark contrast to Speaker A's previous turn at [00:24 - 00:29], which was a caregiver response.\n\nOverall, the logical consistency and topic coherence are severely compromised from [00:21] due to apparent speaker misattributions or a highly confused and inconsistent understanding of character roles, making the dialogue nonsensical in the latter half.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n- **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap observed:\n    - [00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B overlaps for 1 second with Speaker A's turn ending at [00:11]. This is a minor, brief overlap and is acceptable, contributing to natural conversational flow rather than hindering it.\n- **Pauses:**\n    - The pauses between turns are consistently short (0-1 second, e.g., A ends at 00:14, B starts at 00:15; B ends at 00:19, A starts at 00:20). These are all natural and appropriate, indicating a smooth back-and-forth without any extended silence.\n\nThe interactional fluency is good, with no prolonged pauses or extended overlaps that would disrupt the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--333",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Sally, here is a letter for us. It's from Tom.\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: Can you read it, please? My hands are wet with all this dishwashing, and\n[00:07 - 00:17] Speaker A: Wait, before I read it, do you remember the last time Tom sent us a letter? It was about that surprise visit he was planning. Do you think this one might be related?\n[00:17 - 00:26] Speaker B: Oh, right! That visit was such a surprise. But, could you read the letter now? My hands are wet with all this washing, and I'm really curious to know what he's written this time.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Speaker B's initial request to read the letter is logical given Speaker A's announcement. Speaker A's subsequent question about Tom's previous letter, while a slight digression from immediately reading the letter, is highly relevant to the context of receiving a letter from Tom. It shows a thought process connecting the current event to past experiences with the same sender, which is a natural human interaction. Speaker B's response then acknowledges Speaker A's point about the past visit and reiterates the request to read the letter, reinforcing their initial need and curiosity. This maintains topic coherence and logical consistency throughout the brief exchange.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the conversation flows smoothly from one speaker to the next. There is a very brief overlap between [0:07] and [0:08] where Speaker A begins their turn while Speaker B is still finishing \"and\". This is a short, acceptable overlap, common in natural conversation, and does not constitute an \"extended overlap\" that would hinder understanding or flow. Both speakers successfully take turns and contribute to the dialogue without significant interruptions or awkward silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--630",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I was reading this poem by John Keats the other day.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Who's John Keats?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: Keats was an English poet. He died before he was able to complete many\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: Before he was able to what? Publish his poetry?\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker A: Yes, he died before he was able to publish his poetry.\n[00:15 - 00:17] Speaker B: That's pretty interesting.\n[00:17 - 00:20] Speaker A: What about you? What do you like to read?\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker B: I've never read much poetry before. I like reading short stories, like Theodore Roethke and Raymond Carver.\n[00:26 - 00:33] Speaker A: Hemingway is a great choice! But I was curious, what do you think of Roethke's style compared to other short story writers?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue maintains good logical consistency and topic coherence for most of the conversation. Speaker B's initial query about John Keats is addressed clearly by Speaker A. Speaker B's follow-up clarification is also well-received and answered. The conversation then naturally transitions to Speaker B's reading preferences. However, a significant issue arises in Speaker A's final turn ([00:26 - 00:33]). Speaker A states, \"Hemingway is a great choice!\" This is a direct misattribution, as Speaker B only mentioned Theodore Roethke and Raymond Carver, not Ernest Hemingway. This factual error demonstrates a lack of attention or processing of the previous speaker's input, significantly breaking the logical consistency and topic coherence of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits two instances of extended overlaps.\n1.  At [00:08 - 00:11], Speaker B begins speaking (\"Before he was able to what?\") while Speaker A is still completing their sentence at [00:04 - 00:09] (\"...to complete many\"). This results in approximately 1 second of overlapping speech. While this overlap serves to seek clarification on an incomplete thought, it is still an overlapping turn.\n2.  At [00:26 - 00:33], Speaker A begins speaking (\"Hemingway is a great choice!\") while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence at [00:20 - 00:27] (\"...Raymond Carver.\"). This also results in approximately 1 second of overlapping speech. This instance is particularly noticeable as Speaker A immediately follows with a relevance error, suggesting they were not fully listening.\n\nBoth instances are \"overlapping turns\" rather than just \"brief overlaps,\" as they involve one speaker starting their full turn before the previous speaker has concluded. According to the criteria, \"overlapping turns are harmful.\" There are no long pauses detected.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--76960",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I'm sorry about your vase.\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Oh, it's no big deal. I can always get another one if\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: I know, but I feel bad that I knocked it over. Is there anything else I can do to make up for it?\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: Don't worry about it. It was an accident.\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: Yeah, but still...I'm really sorry.\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker B: Seriously, don't worry about it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn is a direct and logical continuation of the preceding one. Speaker A initiates with an apology, which Speaker B immediately attempts to downplay, leading to a back-and-forth where Speaker A reiterates remorse and Speaker B tries to reassure them. The topic (the broken vase and the apology/reassurance dynamic) is consistently maintained throughout the entire conversation. There are no deviations, misunderstandings, or irrelevant statements. The interaction flows naturally as two people address a minor incident and its emotional aftermath.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; most transitions are immediate or involve only a 1-second gap, which is natural. There is one brief overlap: Speaker A starts speaking at 0:04 while Speaker B is still speaking until 0:05. This is a 1-second overlap. However, this is a very common and natural conversational phenomenon, especially when one speaker is reacting to the other's attempt to cut them off or interjecting to emphasize a point (in this case, Speaker A's continued feeling of guilt despite Speaker B's reassurance). It is not an \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" overlap that disrupts understanding or flow. The dialogue feels natural and unhindered by timing issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--501",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey Bob, can you recommend any herb seeds I should buy?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Sure! You know I really enjoy cooking. Maybe I can give you some tips on\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but could you tell me which herbs you use the most in your cooking?\n[00:13 - 00:14] Speaker B: Well, I really like basil.\n[00:15 - 00:16] Speaker A: Do you use it often?\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker B: Definitely. What about you?\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker A: You know, it's actually the first time I'm planting an herb garden.\n[00:23 - 00:24] Speaker B: So what have you planted?\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: I planted parsley, oregano, cilantro, thyme and I was\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker B: Oh, I love thyme! Have you considered how you'll use it in your recipes?\n[00:33 - 00:39] Speaker A: I haven't thought about that much yet. I was about to say I also planted sage. What's your favorite?\n[00:39 - 00:41] Speaker B: Oregano is probably my favorite.\n[00:42 - 00:46] Speaker A: Oregano is a really good addition. I love using basil in my pasta.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B initially acknowledges Speaker A's request for herb recommendations and offers tips, which is relevant. Speaker A then refines their question to focus on herbs B uses most, which logically follows from B's mention of cooking. Subsequent turns build naturally on the previous ones: B answers A's question, A asks for clarification, B asks A in return, A provides context, B asks for details, A lists items, B reacts and asks a follow-up question, A responds and continues their thought, and finally both speakers share their favorite herbs. The conversation stays coherent and on topic throughout, with smooth transitions and no irrelevant contributions or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are a few brief pauses (mostly 1 second between turns), which are natural and do not hinder the flow of conversation. There are also two brief overlaps:\n1. At [00:07 - 00:08], Speaker A interrupts Speaker B with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which is a common and polite conversational marker indicating a brief, intentional overlap. This is not prolonged and doesn't disrupt B's ongoing sentence in a negative way.\n2. At [00:28 - 00:29], Speaker B interjects \"Oh, I love thyme!\" while Speaker A is listing herbs. This is a natural reaction to a specific item in the list and is brief, indicating engagement rather than disruption.\nNeither the pauses nor the overlaps are prolonged or detrimental to the conversation's natural rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--142177",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, boss. How are you today?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm doing well, Woodrow. How are you?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm good. Thanks for asking.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: That's great to hear. So, what have you been up to working on\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but before I forget, I wanted to ask if you've had a chance to review the report I sent last week?\n[00:18 - 00:29] Speaker B: I did, and I was actually going to mention that. Your analysis was thorough, but I think we might need to adjust some of the projections. I was going to ask if you could take a closer look at the market trends and see if\n[00:28 - 00:35] Speaker A: Absolutely, I can dive into that right away. Do you have any specific areas in mind that you'd like me to focus on?\n[00:35 - 00:40] Speaker B: Yes, particularly the impact of recent policy changes on our key markets.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **Opening exchange:** Speaker A's initial greeting and Speaker B's polite reciprocal question are a standard and coherent opening.\n2.  **Topic Transition:** Speaker A's \"Sorry to jump in, but before I forget...\" is a natural and common way to transition from pleasantries to a work-related topic (the report). This shows logical progression from social interaction to business.\n3.  **Direct Answers and Follow-up:** Speaker B directly addresses Speaker A's question about the report, provides feedback, and then introduces a follow-up task. This is a highly relevant and expected response from a \"boss\" figure.\n4.  **Clarification and Acceptance:** Speaker A's immediate acceptance (\"Absolutely, I can dive into that right away\") and subsequent request for clarification (\"Do you have any specific areas in mind?\") are perfectly relevant to the task assigned by Speaker B, demonstrating engagement and a desire for efficiency.\n5.  **Specific Guidance:** Speaker B's final response provides the requested specific guidance, closing the loop on the task assignment.\nOverall, each turn directly builds upon the previous one, maintaining a clear topic focus on the report and the assigned tasks, without any irrelevant detours or logical inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good interactional fluency, with only brief, acceptable overlaps and no long pauses.\n1.  **Pauses:** The pauses between turns (e.g., 1 second between Speaker A's first turn and Speaker B's response at 00:03, and between Speaker A's \"Thanks for asking\" and Speaker B's \"That's great to hear\" at 00:09) are brief and natural, indicative of typical conversational pacing. There are no prolonged silences.\n2.  **Overlaps:**\n    *   **[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B (00:09 - 00:12):** Speaker A begins speaking at 00:11 while Speaker B is still speaking (ending at 00:12). This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this by saying \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the overlap a deliberate and natural interjection for the purpose of asking an urgent question before forgetting. This is a brief and contextually appropriate overlap, not indicative of poor fluency.\n    *   **[00:28 - 00:35] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B (00:18 - 00:29):** Speaker A begins speaking at 00:28 while Speaker B is still speaking (ending at 00:29). This is also a 1-second overlap. Speaker A's immediate response \"Absolutely, I can dive into that right away\" demonstrates active listening and eagerness to comply, making the brief overlap a sign of engaged and anticipatory communication rather than a disruptive interruption.\nBoth overlaps are brief (1 second) and serve a clear interactional purpose (eagerness, urgency), which aligns with the evaluation criteria that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" There are no extended or disruptive overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--625",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Do you make cheese at home? I'm trying to learn to make cheese.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: That sounds like a lot of work! What type of cheese do you want to make? Have\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Cheddar. I've already tried it a few times, but the results aren't as good as I'd like.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: My wife and I love to eat Cheddar. It has a really great flavor. Do you\n[00:15 - 00:17] Speaker A: Oh, really? How did you learn to make cheese?\n[00:18 - 00:19] Speaker B: My wife taught me.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and maintain topic coherence.\nSpeaker A initiates the conversation about making cheese, and Speaker B responds by acknowledging the difficulty and asking a relevant follow-up question (\"What type of cheese...?\"). Speaker A's subsequent turns directly answer B's questions and provide more context. Speaker B's turn at [00:12 - 00:16] connects to Speaker A's mention of Cheddar by sharing a personal preference. While Speaker A's question at [00:15 - 00:17] (\"How did you learn to make cheese?\") might seem like a slight leap given Speaker B only mentioned *eating* Cheddar and was interrupted, it's a common conversational inference, especially in the context of A trying to learn. Speaker B's final response (\"My wife taught me.\") validates this inference, showing that the question was indeed relevant and led to pertinent information. The conversation remains focused on the topic of cheese and cheese making throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is high.\nThere are two instances of brief overlap:\n- [00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A starts speaking at 00:07 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:08, resulting in a 1-second overlap.\n- [00:15 - 00:17] Speaker A starts speaking at 00:15 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:16, resulting in a 1-second overlap.\nAccording to the instructions, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" These overlaps are indeed brief and typical of natural, enthusiastic conversation, where one speaker might anticipate or chime in slightly before the other finishes. They do not appear to be \"extended overlaps\" or \"prolonged\" in a harmful way.\nThe pauses between turns (e.g., 00:03-00:04, 00:17-00:18) are also very short (approximately 1 second), which is natural and does not indicate any \"long pauses.\" Overall, the conversation flows very smoothly.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--442",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Do you have any painting brushes for sale?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I've got some watercolor brushes for sale.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: That sounds nice! How much?\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: If you buy them all, I can give them to you for a very\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but are these brushes in good condition? I just want to make sure before I decide.\n[00:16 - 00:24] Speaker B: Yes, they are in excellent condition. As I was saying, I can give them to you for free. But, I also have acrylic brushes that I could sell you.\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: I already have enough acrylic paints, but I think I'd like to have those watercolor brushes.\n[00:29 - 00:31] Speaker B: I'll let you have them for free.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good response relevance and logical consistency.\n*   **Speaker A's initial query and follow-up (0:00-0:07):** Both are clear, direct, and logically flow from one another, establishing the topic (painting brushes for sale) and moving towards pricing.\n*   **Speaker B's initial response (0:02-0:04):** Directly answers Speaker A's question about brushes.\n*   **Speaker A's interruption and question (0:09-0:16):** Although an interruption, the question \"are these brushes in good condition?\" is highly relevant *before* making a purchase decision. It shows a logical thought process from the buyer. Speaker A acknowledges the interruption, which also maintains conversational politeness.\n*   **Speaker B's response after interruption (0:16-0:24):** Speaker B directly addresses Speaker A's condition question (\"Yes, they are in excellent condition\"). Then, Speaker B revisits their interrupted statement, making a significant shift from implying a price (\"for a very...\") to offering the items \"for free.\" While this shift in the offer might seem unusual in a typical sale, within the context of the dialogue, it becomes the new premise. Speaker B then logically tries to upsell or cross-sell by mentioning \"acrylic brushes,\" which is a common sales tactic.\n*   **Speaker A's response (0:24-0:29):** Speaker A logically rejects the acrylic brushes and reconfirms interest in the watercolor brushes now offered for free. This is consistent with the established premise.\n*   **Speaker B's final confirmation (0:29-0:31):** Speaker B confirms the offer, maintaining logical consistency with the previous turn.\n\nThe dialogue maintains topic coherence throughout, even with the unexpected shift to a free offer, as both speakers adapt their responses to the new premise. There are no major logical inconsistencies or abrupt topic changes that derail the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no extended or long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between speakers are quick and natural, indicating a smooth conversation flow (e.g., 0:04-0:05, 0:07-0:07, 0:16-0:16, 0:24-0:24, 0:29-0:29). All pauses are brief and fall within the acceptable range for natural conversation.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap:\n    *   `[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: If you buy them all, I can give them to you for a very`\n    *   `[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but are these brushes in good condition? I just want to make sure before I decide.`\n    This overlap from 0:09 to 0:10 is only 1 second long. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the overlap by saying \"Sorry to cut in,\" which further contributes to the naturalness of the interaction and demonstrates conversational awareness. This is a brief and acceptable overlap, not a prolonged or harmful one.\n\nOverall, the dialogue flows very naturally with appropriate turn-taking and timing.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--277",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:10] Speaker A: Right. Just take off your jacket and shirt. And lie down on that bed over there. . . That's right. . . Now, just hold up your right arm, will you? . . . Does this cause any\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker B: Sorry, before we continue, I just wanted to mention that I've been feeling a bit dizzy since this morning. Could that be related to my arm pain?\n[00:17 - 00:25] Speaker A: Dizziness could be related, but let's focus on the arm first and then we can discuss other symptoms. So, does this hurt?\n[00:25 - 00:26] Speaker B: No.\n[00:26 - 00:27] Speaker A: And this?\n[00:28 - 00:29] Speaker B: Yes. . . a bit. . . ouch!\n[00:30 - 00:32] Speaker A: And do you feel anything when I do this?\n[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker B: Yes, that hurts quite a lot.\n[00:34 - 00:38] Speaker A: And you don't feel any pain anywhere else? In your legs, for example?\n[00:39 - 00:46] Speaker B: No, nothing. By the way, about that dizziness I mentioned earlier, do you think it could be something serious?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A consistently demonstrates logical consistency and topic coherence by attempting to keep the conversation focused on the physical examination of the arm, which is their immediate goal. For example, at [00:17 - 00:25], Speaker A acknowledges Speaker B's mention of dizziness but swiftly redirects back to the arm examination, stating \"let's focus on the arm first and then we can discuss other symptoms.\" This shows a clear strategy to maintain the primary topic.\n\nSpeaker B, as a patient, brings up additional symptoms (dizziness) that are relevant to their overall health but not directly to the current examination step. This leads to slight topic digressions at [00:09 - 00:16] and [00:39 - 00:46]. While these are understandable from a patient's perspective, they do challenge the strict coherence of the diagnostic procedure. However, Speaker A's responses are always relevant in how they manage these digressions (acknowledging and redirecting rather than ignoring or getting sidetracked).\n\nOverall, the responses are logically consistent, and topic coherence is well-managed by Speaker A despite Speaker B's understandable diversions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue exhibits natural interactional fluency with no significant issues of extended overlaps or long pauses.\n\n*   **Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap between [00:09 - 00:10] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap, which falls under the \"brief overlaps\" category and is acceptable, indicating a natural eagerness to contribute rather than a disruptive interruption.\n*   **Pauses:** There are two instances of 1-second pauses:\n    *   Between [00:27] (Speaker A's end) and [00:28] (Speaker B's start).\n    *   Between [00:38] (Speaker A's end) and [00:39] (Speaker B's start).\n    These are brief and natural pauses, allowing for processing time or slight hesitation, and do not qualify as \"long pauses\" that would harm the interactional flow.\n\nThe conversation flows smoothly without awkward silences or disruptive overlapping speech.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--244",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hello, James. Come in. Go through to the living room.\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: Hi Kate... thanks... wow! Look at all the furniture. You must have spent a fortune on it! I love your new three-piece suite.\n[00:10 - 00:19] Speaker A: I told you that I had been saving up money to buy some new furniture and do some redecorating. I finally saved enough and did everything just the\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I'm curious—how long did it take you to save up for all of this?\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: It took me about two years of careful budgeting. But I haven't mentioned the new curtains yet that I\n[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker B: Oh, I noticed them! That's a very nice shade of blue. And this sofa is very comfortable. I could sit on it all day!\n[00:35 - 00:40] Speaker A: Do you like my carpet? Be honest! Tell me what you really think.\n[00:40 - 00:45] Speaker B: To be honest, it looks like your old carpet. Is it really new or did you just have your old one cleaned?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, and the conversation maintains strong topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial comments on the furniture are a natural reaction to Speaker A inviting them into the living room.\n- Speaker A's explanation about saving money directly addresses B's observation about spending a fortune.\n- Speaker B's interruption to ask about saving time is directly related to A's previous statement about saving. B also acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), showing conversational awareness.\n- Speaker A answers B's question directly and then attempts to introduce another new item (curtains).\n- Speaker B's subsequent interruption (\"Oh, I noticed them!\") shows they were listening and is directly on topic, leading to further comments about the sofa's comfort, which is still within the theme of new decor.\n- Speaker A's question about the carpet naturally extends the discussion about the new furnishings.\n- Speaker B's honest and direct answer about the carpet is a relevant response to A's request for honesty.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses, logical inconsistencies, or sudden topic shifts. The conversation flows very naturally from one piece of furniture to another.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns, indicating a smooth and continuous flow of conversation.\n- There are brief overlaps present:\n    - At [00:18 - 00:23], Speaker B starts speaking at 00:18 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:19. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which makes it acceptable and natural in a dynamic conversation, rather than disruptive.\n    - At [00:28 - 00:34], Speaker B starts speaking at 00:28 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:29. This is another 1-second overlap. This overlap feels like an eager interjection (\"Oh, I noticed them!\") and does not disrupt the conversational flow; instead, it indicates engagement.\nThese overlaps are brief and either acknowledged or reflect eagerness to contribute, fitting the description of \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\" and not \"prolonged overlapping turns.\" The dialogue feels dynamic and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--442",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I need to get some business cards printed up.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Do you know how many you need?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: I think I can get by with 2,000.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: We can get started as soon as you fill out this form.\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker A: I hope you can make the new cards just like my old ones, with\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but do you want any updates on the design or information, or are you sticking strictly to the old format?\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker A: No changes at all, just like the old ones. As I was saying, you won't be able to tell the difference with a magnifying glass.\n[00:27 - 00:29] Speaker B: Got it. Just fill out the form and we'll get started.\n[00:30 - 00:34] Speaker A: Okay, I'm through. Here's the form and my old card.\n[00:35 - 00:37] Speaker B: Very good. You can pick up your order in one week.\n[00:38 - 00:42] Speaker A: Oh, actually—now that I think of it, three days is better than waiting a\n[00:41 - 00:45] Speaker B: Three days? We can do that, but you'll have to pay a little extra.\n[00:46 - 00:51] Speaker A: That's fine. Would you need me to fill out a different form for the rush order, or is this one okay?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates the conversation about business cards, and Speaker B's replies consistently address the core topic, moving the interaction forward logically from quantity, to design preferences, to the order process, and finally to a delivery time adjustment. Each turn builds upon the previous one in a clear, sensible manner. For instance, Speaker B's interjection to clarify design updates is highly relevant to Speaker A's expressed desire for the new cards to be \"just like my old ones.\" Similarly, Speaker A's request for a rush order and Speaker B's subsequent negotiation of terms (cost, form) maintain perfect topical relevance and logical flow within the customer service interaction. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or illogical jumps in conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are smooth and natural, with most gaps being 0-1 second, which is typical for fluent conversation. There are two instances of brief overlap:\n1.  `[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B:` overlaps `[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker A:` for 1 second. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" indicating it was a conscious and purposeful interruption for clarification, which is a natural conversational maneuver and not prolonged or harmful.\n2.  `[00:41 - 00:45] Speaker B:` overlaps `[00:38 - 00:42] Speaker A:` for 1 second. Speaker B interjects \"Three days?\" as Speaker A is still speaking, which is a common and acceptable brief interruption for confirmation or clarification in a fast-paced exchange.\nBoth overlaps are brief (1 second each) and serve a clear communicative purpose, without disrupting the overall flow or causing confusion. They fall within the acceptable range of \"brief overlaps\" as stated in the instructions, and do not constitute \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--393",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: You look pale, Stephanie. What's wrong?\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: I don't feel good. I have a bad headache. In fact, I haven't got much sleep this past week and I feel really exhausted, like\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker A: Tired? You should definitely see a doctor.\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: Yeah, I think I should but I have a report due tomorrow. Miss Jenkins needs it for the board meeting next Monday, and\n[00:16 - 00:24] Speaker A: Sorry, did you say the board meeting is on Monday? If that's the case, why don't you talk to Miss Jenkins and ask if you can hand it in on Friday morning?\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker B: Maybe I should try. I guess I just need a good sleep. Thanks, George.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance.\n- **[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A** sets the context by noticing Stephanie's appearance and asking what's wrong.\n- **[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B** provides a direct and detailed answer to Speaker A's question, explaining her symptoms and their cause (lack of sleep). This is highly relevant.\n- **[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker A** actively listens and completes Speaker B's thought (\"exhausted, like\" -> \"Tired?\"), then offers a logical piece of advice (\"You should definitely see a doctor\") based on the symptoms. This demonstrates excellent logical consistency and empathy.\n- **[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B** acknowledges Speaker A's advice (\"Yeah, I think I should\") but immediately introduces a relevant conflict/obstacle (the report due tomorrow), explaining why seeing a doctor is difficult. This maintains topic coherence and provides necessary context for the next turn.\n- **[00:16 - 00:24] Speaker A** picks up on a crucial detail (\"board meeting next Monday\") from Speaker B's previous turn and uses it to propose a relevant, problem-solving solution that directly addresses Speaker B's stated obstacle. This shows engagement and logical progression.\n- **[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker B** responds positively to the suggestion (\"Maybe I should try\"), reiterates her core need (\"I guess I just need a good sleep\"), and expresses gratitude, bringing the interaction to a natural and relevant conclusion.\n\nOverall, the conversation is highly logical, coherent, and each turn builds meaningfully on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are no long pauses between turns. All transitions are quick and natural, maintaining a steady conversational pace.\n- Two brief overlaps occur:\n    - **[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker A** starts speaking at 0:08 while **Speaker B** finishes at 0:09. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A's interjection \"Tired?\" and immediate advice suggest active listening and an eagerness to help, which is a common and natural feature of highly engaged conversation. It's a brief, anticipatory overlap, not a disruptive or extended one.\n    - **[00:16 - 00:24] Speaker A** starts speaking at 0:16 while **Speaker B** finishes at 0:17. This is also a 1-second overlap. Speaker A's quick question \"Sorry, did you say the board meeting is on Monday?\" indicates a rapid processing of information and an immediate desire to clarify a key detail to propose a solution. This type of brief, clarification-seeking overlap is also very natural and does not hinder the flow; rather, it often indicates high engagement.\n- Both overlaps are brief (1 second) and appear to facilitate the conversation rather than disrupt it. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these examples fit that description perfectly. There are no \"extended overlaps\" or \"long pauses.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--111",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: So, did I tell you about my New Year's resolution? I've decided to go on a diet and\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Oh, really? Does this mean you're finally going to completely transform your eating habits?\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker A: Exactly! I'm going to cut out all that junk I eat. No more chips, no more soda, no more fried foods that\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker B: Wait, fried food too? That sounds pretty tough. How are you planning to manage that?\n[00:21 - 00:30] Speaker A: Yeah, fried food too. But this time I'm going to stick to it. I really mean it! Trust me, Carol, I'm going to be a new man in one year's time!\n[00:30 - 00:32] Speaker B: Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A introduces a New Year's resolution about dieting. Speaker B's first response directly addresses this (\"Oh, really? Does this mean you're finally going to completely transform your eating habits?\") and asks a relevant follow-up. Speaker A elaborates on their plan, and Speaker B then picks up on a specific, challenging aspect (\"Wait, fried food too? That sounds pretty tough. How are you planning to manage that?\"). Speaker A confirms and reaffirms their commitment, and Speaker B offers a concluding remark that acknowledges A's statement with a touch of realistic skepticism (\"Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.\"). The conversation flows naturally from one turn to the next, maintaining a clear topic (the diet resolution) without any irrelevant detours or misunderstandings. Each turn builds logically on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural and uninterrupted flow of conversation. The turns are quick and responsive. There are two instances of brief, acceptable overlaps:\n- [00:04 - 00:05]: Speaker B starts speaking 1 second before Speaker A finishes. This is a very brief, natural overlap that often occurs in engaged conversations where one speaker anticipates the end of a turn or interjects.\n- [00:16 - 00:17]: Speaker B starts speaking 1 second before Speaker A finishes. Again, this is a brief, natural overlap that does not disrupt comprehension or the flow.\nThese small overlaps enhance the naturalness of the dialogue rather than detracting from it, showing that both speakers are actively listening and engaged.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--649",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi! How are you doing?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm great! I'm getting ready for the new term.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: Oh cool! What are you taking?\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: I'm taking a class on gender studies. I want to explore how gender intersects with various social\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: How do you think this class will influence your perspective on current social issues?\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: I think it will give me a more nuanced understanding. And what about you? What are you taking?\n[00:22 - 00:31] Speaker A: I'm doing a class on Law and Feminism. We're currently looking at the intersections between feminist theories and legal frameworks to understand\n[00:30 - 00:34] Speaker B: Are you focusing on any specific case studies or legal battles in your class?\n[00:34 - 00:42] Speaker A: Yes, we are examining several key cases in the United States and Australia. Have you ever considered studying Law?\n[00:42 - 00:47] Speaker B: No, not really. I'm sure it would be great, but I have no interest in practicing law.\n[00:47 - 00:49] Speaker A: What are your plans for the future?\n[00:49 - 00:53] Speaker B: I'd like to get a job in management consulting, and go to grad school for my MBA.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate high logical consistency and topic coherence. Each speaker's turn directly follows from and builds upon the previous one, maintaining a natural flow of conversation.\n- Speaker B's initial response about the \"new term\" leads logically to Speaker A's question about what B is \"taking\".\n- Speaker B's answer about \"gender studies\" prompts Speaker A to ask about its influence on \"social issues\", showing engagement with the topic.\n- Speaker B then reciprocates the question, leading Speaker A to discuss their \"Law and Feminism\" class.\n- Speaker B's follow-up question about \"case studies\" is directly relevant to A's legal class.\n- Speaker A's subsequent question about B considering \"studying Law\" is a natural expansion from the discussion of A's law class.\n- Finally, Speaker A's query about \"plans for the future\" flows naturally from B's declaration of no interest in practicing law.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is very good.\n- **Pauses:** There are small, natural pauses (e.g., 1-second pauses at [00:01-00:02], [00:04-00:05], [00:16-00:17]), which are well within acceptable limits and contribute to the natural rhythm of the conversation. There are no long or unnatural silences.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps identified ([00:12-00:13] and [00:30-00:31]). In both cases, one speaker starts speaking about 1 second before the other finishes their sentence. These are very short overlaps and typical of natural, engaged conversation, indicating active listening and turn-taking rather than interruption or significant overtalking. They do not hinder comprehension or the flow of the dialogue. The prompt states that \"brief overlaps... are acceptable.\"\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking are smooth and natural, with no significant fluency issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--59994",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: I can't believe I'm finally doing this! I've wanted to be a rock climber for years, and this seems like the perfect opportunity to challenge myself\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but do you have all the safety gear you need? I know you've done your research, but I just want to make sure you're fully prepared.\n[00:15 - 00:24] Speaker A: Absolutely, I double-checked everything. I'm pretty excited. Nervous too, of course, but mostly just excited. This is going to be a big\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: Wait, before you go, have you told anyone else about your route? Just in case, you know, for safety reasons.\n[00:30 - 00:39] Speaker A: Good point! I did let a friend know, so no worries there. Just make sure you're careful up there, okay? I don't want anything happening to you.\n[00:39 - 00:42] Speaker B: Don't worry, I will be. See you when I get back down!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with Speaker A expressing excitement about rock climbing. Speaker B acts as a concerned friend, asking relevant safety questions. Speaker A confirms they have checked safety gear and informed a friend, maintaining the consistency of Speaker A being the climber. However, a significant logical inconsistency arises in the last two turns. At [00:30 - 00:39], Speaker A, who has been established as the one going rock climbing, says, \"Just make sure you're careful up there, okay? I don't want anything happening to you.\" This remark implies Speaker B is the one going \"up there.\" This role reversal is confirmed by Speaker B's response at [00:39 - 00:42]: \"Don't worry, I will be. See you when I get back down!\" Speaker B's response clearly indicates *they* are the one going rock climbing and returning, contradicting the entire premise set by Speaker A at the beginning and the subsequent questions from Speaker B. This fundamental shift in who is performing the activity demonstrates a severe breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence, making the end of the conversation nonsensical in context of its beginning.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are minor, brief overlaps that are natural and common in conversation, such as Speaker B cutting in at [00:07] and acknowledging it (\"Sorry to cut in\"), and again at [00:24] right as Speaker A finishes. These are not extended overlaps and do not disrupt the flow negatively. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pacing feels natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--33405",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Marcelino. I had a great time last night.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Me too! I'm glad you slept over.\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker A: Yeah, I really wanted to spend more time with you. You're so fun to hang out\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but I was thinking—do you want to make breakfast first before we decide what to do?\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker A: Oh, breakfast sounds great! But I was just saying you're so fun to be around.\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B: Aww, thank you! I feel the same way about you. So, what do you want to do today?\n[00:25 - 00:28] Speaker A: I don't know, what do you feel like\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker B: Actually, I just remembered—didn't you mention wanting to try out that new game outside?\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker A: Oh yeah, I did! Well, we could watch some more cartoons or go outside and play.\n[00:37 - 00:40] Speaker B: That sounds like fun! Let's go outside and play.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A and B consistently respond to each other's statements and questions. For example, A shares enjoying the previous night, B affirms it. B suggests breakfast, A agrees. B asks what to do, A asks B's preference, and B then offers a specific idea. The conversation logically progresses from reflecting on the past night to planning the current day's activities. While Speaker B initiates two topic shifts with interruptions (e.g., suggesting breakfast when A is complimenting, or suggesting an activity when A is thinking), these shifts are relevant to the overall context of two people spending time together. Speaker A successfully manages to re-introduce a cut-off thought (\"But I was just saying you're so fun to be around\"), which Speaker B acknowledges, maintaining coherence. There are no abrupt, nonsensical, or irrelevant turns. The dialogue maintains a clear topic flow, moving from general pleasantries to concrete plans for the day.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, but there are two notable instances of extended overlaps where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A mid-sentence.\n1.  **[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B:** interrupts Speaker A ([00:06 - 00:11]) while A is mid-sentence. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in.\" This is an \"overlapping turn\" rather than a brief overlap.\n2.  **[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker B:** interrupts Speaker A ([00:25 - 00:28]) again while A is mid-sentence, asking \"what do you feel like.\" This is also an \"overlapping turn.\"\n\nAccording to the criteria, \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" While these are indeed overlapping turns, they do not appear to be \"harmful\" in the sense of causing significant disruption to the communication or understanding. Speaker B's apologies (in the first case) and the natural flow of the conversation suggest these are more indicative of eager or informal conversation rather than a breakdown in turn-taking. Speaker A is able to re-engage with their initial thought later. The small 1-second pauses between turns (e.g., 0:15-0:16, 0:20-0:21, 0:30-0:31) are natural and do not impede flow. Given that the dialogue overall flows well and is easy to follow despite these specific interruptions, the fluency is largely appropriate, even if not perfectly smooth in terms of turn-taking. They don't constitute \"significant issues\" that would make the dialogue poor.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--142357",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: This book is really interesting. It's giving me a lot to think about in terms of how I communicate with others, especially\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but do you think the book offers practical tips that you can apply in daily conversations?\n[00:13 - 00:26] Speaker A: Definitely, it does. I never realized how much body language and tone of voice can affect the way someone perceives what you're saying. It even goes into detail about how small changes can lead to big improvements in understanding.\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker B: That's true. It's important to be aware of those things when you're communicating with someone.\n[00:32 - 00:41] Speaker A: This book has really opened my eyes to the importance of effective communication. I'm grateful that I read it. It's definitely something I'll be recommending to others.\n[00:42 - 00:43] Speaker B: I'm glad you found it useful!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A introduces a book and its impact on their understanding of communication. Speaker B's initial question directly follows up on this, asking about practical tips, which is a logical next step in discussing a self-help/insightful book. Speaker A then provides relevant details, explaining how the book addresses body language and tone of voice. Speaker B's subsequent affirmation (\"That's true...\") is a coherent and natural agreement, showing active listening. Speaker A continues by reiterating the book's value and their intention to recommend it, which is consistent with their initial enthusiastic tone. Finally, Speaker B's concluding remark (\"I'm glad you found it useful!\") is a perfectly relevant and supportive closing statement to Speaker A's positive feedback. The conversation flows smoothly without any digressions or non-sequiturs, maintaining a clear focus on the book and effective communication throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very high. There is one brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at the beginning (00:07 - 00:08), where Speaker B interjects with \"Sorry to jump in,\" while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This is explicitly acknowledged and managed by Speaker B, which is a common and natural characteristic of fluent, engaged conversation rather than a disruptive overlap. It shows eagerness to participate and politeness. There are no extended or prolonged overlaps that hinder understanding or turn-taking. Similarly, there are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural and responsive conversational rhythm. The turn-taking is smooth and efficient, contributing to a natural and dynamic exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--453",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: What are the factors that have a great impact on the perspective of this corporation?\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: External factors. I think the main external factors are political, economic, social, and technological such as\n[00:10 - 00:19] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but when you mention political factors, are you referring to the current regulations or potential changes that might come into play?\n[00:19 - 00:36] Speaker B: Both, actually. Current regulations definitely shape our operations, but potential changes are something we need to keep an eye on as well. Now, about the internal factors, they include human resources, team spirit, innovation spirit, and organizational culture,\n[00:35 - 00:42] Speaker A: Oh, speaking of team spirit, do you think there's anything specific we could do to improve that within our departments?\n[00:42 - 00:53] Speaker B: Absolutely. Enhancing communication and collaboration across departments would be a good start. But I was also going to mention the importance of coordination between different departments, which ties into that.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B initially answers Speaker A's broad question about factors (external, then internal) directly. Speaker A's interruptions, while cutting off Speaker B, are highly relevant and seek clarification or elaboration on points Speaker B has just raised or is about to raise (e.g., clarifying \"political factors,\" picking up on \"team spirit\"). Speaker B consistently addresses Speaker A's follow-up questions and attempts to bring the conversation back to the broader topic of factors impacting the corporation, showing good topic coherence. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction shows good fluency. There are two instances of overlapping speech:\n1.  Speaker A's turn at [00:10 - 00:19] overlaps with Speaker B's turn at [00:04 - 00:11] by approximately 1 second (A starts at 0:10, B ends at 0:11). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the overlap feel natural and polite rather than disruptive.\n2.  Speaker A's turn at [00:35 - 00:42] overlaps with Speaker B's turn at [00:19 - 00:36] by approximately 1 second (A starts at 0:35, B ends at 0:36). This is also a very brief overlap, where Speaker A jumps in right as Speaker B mentions \"team spirit,\" indicating active listening and engagement.\n\nBoth overlaps are very brief and do not hinder the flow or comprehension of the conversation. There are no long pauses between turns. The overall pace and rhythm feel natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--54731",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Hey, boss. Do you have anything else for me to work on? I'm starting to get a little bored with this repetitive task,\n[00:06 - 00:14] Speaker B: Actually, before we move on, I wanted to ask—how are you finding the current project? Is there something specific that's making it less engaging for you?\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker A: It's just a bit repetitive, but I think I can manage. Anyway, we could use some help with the budget report.\n[00:21 - 00:23] Speaker B: Okay, I'll take a look at it.\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker A: Great. Let me know if you have any questions.\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker B: Will do. So, this budget report. Where do I even start?\n[00:31 - 00:38] Speaker A: Well, we need to go through all of our expenses for the past month and see where we can cut unnecessary costs,\n[00:37 - 00:43] Speaker B: Just to clarify, are we focusing more on operational costs or are there other areas we should prioritize?\n[00:44 - 00:52] Speaker A: Operational costs are a big part of it, but we should also look at discretionary spending. It is a lot of work, but I know you can handle it.\n[00:53 - 00:55] Speaker B: Alright, I'll get started on it right away.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker A expresses boredom, leading Speaker B to inquire about the current project. Speaker A then suggests a new task (budget report), which Speaker B accepts and then seeks clarification on. Speaker A provides the necessary details. The conversation maintains a clear cause-and-effect relationship between turns.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The conversation remains highly coherent. It starts with a discussion about Speaker A's workload and desire for new tasks, smoothly transitions into the assignment and scope definition of the \"budget report,\" and concludes with a clear understanding of the task. There are no sudden topic shifts or irrelevant tangents. The initial \"Anyway, we could use some help with the budget report\" serves as a natural transition point, linking the initial complaint to a practical solution.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps detected:\n    *   [00:06 - 00:07]: Speaker A is still talking for 1 second while Speaker B begins their turn. This is a very brief overlap, common in natural conversation where one speaker might anticipate the end of another's sentence or jump in when the other trails off.\n    *   [00:37 - 00:38]: Speaker A is still talking for 1 second while Speaker B begins their turn. Similar to the first, this is a minor, natural overlap.\n    Neither of these qualify as \"extended overlaps\" that would harm the conversation flow.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are several brief pauses, all around 1 second in duration:\n    *   [00:26 - 00:27] (1 second)\n    *   [00:30 - 00:31] (1 second)\n    *   [00:43 - 00:44] (1 second)\n    *   [00:52 - 00:53] (1 second)\n    These are all \"small pauses\" as per the criteria and do not disrupt the flow. They are typical conversational pauses, allowing for processing or transition. There are no \"prolonged pauses\" that would indicate hesitation or lack of engagement.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking feel natural and efficient.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--44773",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey Tasha, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Not much, just hanging out. What about you?\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: I've been thinking a lot lately about the inequality in our community and how I can help create more\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: Oh, that's interesting. Are you thinking of joining any specific organizations or starting something on your own?\n[00:16 - 00:35] Speaker A: I'm actually considering both. I grew up seeing the inequality in my community and it's something that I've always wanted to do something about. When I became a lawyer, I saw it as an opportunity to help make change happen. There are a lot of people who don't have the same opportunities as we do and I want to fight for their rights.\n[00:36 - 00:41] Speaker B: I admire your passion for this issue. I think it's really important that we all do our part to raise awareness\n[00:40 - 00:48] Speaker A: Absolutely, and I believe that even small actions can contribute to a larger impact. Thank you, Tasha. I appreciate your support.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is excellent.\n**Logical Consistency:** The conversation flows logically from Speaker A's initial statement about inequality and their desire to help, to Speaker B's relevant questions and expressions of support, and back to Speaker A's elaborated motivations and plans. There are no contradictions or illogical jumps in reasoning.\n**Topic Coherence:** The entire dialogue remains tightly focused on the topic of addressing inequality in the community. Each turn contributes to developing this theme, whether it's Speaker A explaining their thoughts and actions, or Speaker B acknowledging and encouraging. The questions and statements are always on-topic and build upon the previous turns, demonstrating strong coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is generally good, but there is one instance of an extended overlap that detracts slightly.\n**Extended Overlaps:** At `[00:40 - 00:48]`, Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still in their turn (`[00:36 - 00:41]`). Speaker B says \"awareness\" at `[00:41]`, but Speaker A's turn has already begun at `[00:40]`, indicating a 1-second overlap where both speakers are talking. While not extremely long, it's noticeable.\n**Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and natural, indicating a smooth conversation flow.\nOverall, the dialogue feels natural and conversational, despite the minor overlap. The turns are well-timed for the most part.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--440",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: If I won the Pools, I'd go round the world.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Would you? I wouldn't.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker A: What would you do?\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Oh, I don't know. I'd buy a big house with a garden for my wife and kids, I suppose. But it's difficult to imagine having a lot of money\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but do you think having a big house would change your life significantly?\n[00:17 - 00:25] Speaker B: Well, it might, but as I was saying, it's difficult to imagine having a lot of money. One thing's certain. If I had a lot of money, I wouldn't work any more.\n[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker A: Wouldn't you? What would you do with all that spare time?\n[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker B: As I said, I'd buy a big house, but you mentioned going round the world earlier. What would you do after that?\n[00:36 - 00:40] Speaker A: Oh, I don't know. It'd take me a long time to go round the world.\n[00:41 - 00:42] Speaker B: It doesn't sound very exciting.\n[00:43 - 00:50] Speaker A: Anyway, we haven't won the Pools, and we're not likely to win them. So there isn't much point in talking about it, is there?\n[00:50 - 00:52] Speaker B: I'd be happy if I got a rise.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates a hypothetical scenario, and Speaker B responds by contrasting their preference. Subsequent turns involve direct questions and answers, elaboration on personal thoughts, and a natural back-and-forth about the \"Pools\" winnings. Even when Speaker A interrupts, the subsequent conversation (Speaker B returning to their original thought, then Speaker A shifting the topic to a more realistic scenario) maintains coherence. The final turn from Speaker B about getting a rise is a natural and coherent shift from the fantasy scenario to a more grounded desire for financial improvement. The conversation flows logically from one point to the next, with each speaker building on or responding directly to the previous utterance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction generally demonstrates good interactional fluency. There are no significant long pauses between turns that would disrupt the flow. There is one instance of an overlap (00:11-00:17) where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. However, Speaker A immediately acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which is a common and natural way to manage such an occurrence in conversation. Speaker B then explicitly refers back to their interrupted thought by saying \"as I was saying,\" indicating that the interruption was brief and did not derail the conversation. This brief, acknowledged overlap does not constitute a \"prolonged overlap\" that harms the interaction significantly, but rather reflects a dynamic, slightly less formal conversational style.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--195",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Linda, I can't find my cellphone anywhere in this hotel room! Could you check the\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but did you check the car? Sometimes it slips between the seats or falls under them.\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: I don't think it's in the car. I think the battery's dead, and I can't hear it ringing.\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: Oh, no? How are you going to find it? We have to leave for the wedding in 15 minutes.\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker A: Well, maybe I won't take my cellphone to the wedding. Do I really need\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker B: Actually, you do need it. My sister might call you to tell us how the kids are doing. Could it be in the bakery where we ate breakfast?\n[00:30 - 00:33] Speaker A: Yes! I remember now; I left it in the bakery.\n[00:34 - 00:44] Speaker B: OK, well, I need to call my sister to tell her you lost your phone. Then I'll call the bakery. If the bakery is still open, maybe we can pick it up before we go to the wedding. Please keep your phone in your pocket next time.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance.\n1.  **Logical consistency:** Each turn directly responds to the previous one, building logically on the unfolding situation of the lost phone. Speaker B's suggestions (car, bakery) are logical attempts to help find the phone. Speaker A's responses clarify the situation (battery dead, remembering the bakery). The introduction of the wedding time constraint and the need for the phone (for the kids' update) are also logically integrated into the search. Speaker B's concluding plan of action (calling sister, bakery, picking up) is a logical next step after the phone's location is identified.\n2.  **Topic coherence:** The entire conversation remains tightly focused on the single topic of finding Speaker A's lost cellphone. All turns contribute to this central theme, from initial problem identification to suggested solutions, discovery of location, and planning for retrieval. There are no irrelevant tangents or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n1.  **Extended overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps.\n    *   [00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A for 1 second ([00:04 - 00:05]). Speaker B explicitly states \"Sorry to interrupt,\" indicating awareness and politeness, and the overlap is very short and natural, indicating eagerness to help.\n    *   [00:23 - 00:29] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A for 1 second ([00:23 - 00:24]). This is a brief, back-channel type of overlap where Speaker B is quickly countering Speaker A's tentative thought (\"Do I really need\") with a definitive \"Actually, you do need it.\" This indicates active listening and engagement, not disruption.\n    Both overlaps are brief and typical of natural, engaged conversation, showing speakers are listening and reacting promptly rather than being disruptive or extended.\n2.  **Long pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses range from 0 to 1 second, which is natural and promotes a smooth, continuous flow of conversation. The immediate responses demonstrate good conversational rhythm and responsiveness from both speakers.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--616",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: What should I do about this leaky pipe?\n[00:02 - 00:08] Speaker B: This is something you will need to call a plumber for. You can buy a more affordable pipe stretcher at Home Depot, though.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: That sounds promising - I'll check it out.\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker B: You can also buy a pipe snake if you are planning to\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker A: Sorry, just to clarify, what exactly does a pipe snake do?\n[00:17 - 00:25] Speaker B: A pipe snake helps to clear clogs in the pipes. Anyway, if you are doing this by yourself, you might find it useful. How often should I clean my gutters?\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: Well, this is also something you should ask a professional. I would suggest maybe every couple of months, depending\n[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker B: Wait, does this require a ladder?\n[00:34 - 00:41] Speaker A: You might need a ladder, or maybe someone to help you. You might be able to use a leaf blower or a shovel to do the work.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **[00:00 - 00:08]:** Speaker A asks about a leaky pipe. Speaker B suggests calling a plumber and mentions a \"pipe stretcher.\" While a pipe stretcher isn't directly for leaks, it's a plumbing tool, so the general advice about a plumber is relevant.\n*   **[00:08 - 00:17]:** Speaker A responds to B's suggestion. Speaker B then mentions a \"pipe snake,\" and Speaker A asks for clarification. All these turns maintain a coherent topic of plumbing tools and advice related to the initial \"leaky pipe\" problem.\n*   **[00:17 - 00:25]:** Speaker B explains what a pipe snake does, which is relevant to A's clarification question. However, immediately after this explanation, Speaker B abruptly changes the topic to \"How often should I clean my gutters?\" This is a significant, unprompted, and illogical topic shift that breaks the logical consistency and topic coherence of the conversation. There is no lead-in or reason for this change.\n*   **[00:26 - 00:41]:** Speaker A and B then continue the conversation about gutter cleaning, maintaining coherence *within this new topic*. However, the initial shift itself is a major relevance issue.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:** There is a significant breakdown in topic coherence and logical consistency due to Speaker B's abrupt and unprompted topic shift at [00:17 - 00:25]. This is a major detractor from the quality of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Overlaps:**\n    *   **[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B:** Speaker B starts speaking at 00:12 (\"You can also buy a pipe snake if you are planning to\"), and Speaker A starts at 00:13 (\"Sorry, just to clarify...\"). This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A interrupts Speaker B, cutting off B's sentence. While brief, it is an interruptive overlap.\n    *   **[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A:** Speaker A is speaking until 00:32 (\"depending\"), and Speaker B starts at 00:31 (\"Wait, does this require a ladder?\"). This is also a 1-second overlap. Speaker B interrupts Speaker A, cutting off A's sentence. Again, brief but interruptive.\n\n*   **Pauses:**\n    *   There is a 1-second pause between [00:25] (end of Speaker B's turn) and [00:26] (start of Speaker A's turn). This is a small, acceptable pause and does not negatively impact fluency.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:** The dialogue contains two brief (1-second) but interruptive overlaps where one speaker cuts off the other's turn. While not prolonged, these instances indicate a slight lack of smooth turn-taking, causing sentences to be incomplete. There are no long pauses. The fluency is acceptable but not perfectly natural due to the interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--3",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Kate, you never believe what's happened.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: What do you mean?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: Masha and Hero are getting divorced.\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker B: You are kidding. What happened?\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: Well, I don't really know, but I heard that they are having a separation for 2 months, and filed for divorce recently.\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: Wait, did you say two months? How come no one noticed anything during that time?\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker A: Yeah, it's been very hush-hush. They've kept it quiet. But I was going to say they filed for divorce.\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker B: That's really surprising. I always thought they are well matched. What about the kids? Who gets custody?\n[00:32 - 00:41] Speaker A: Masha, it seems quiet and amicable, no quarrelling about who gets the house and stock and then contesting the divorce with other assets like\n[00:41 - 00:46] Speaker B: Sorry, I just realized—did they already work out the custody details, or is that still pending?\n[00:46 - 00:53] Speaker A: Oh, I was about to say they worked out the other details too. Everything seems to be settled, including the custody.\n[00:53 - 01:02] Speaker B: That's the change from all the back-stepping we usually hear about. Well, I still can't believe it, Masha and Hero, the perfect couple. When would their divorce be final?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn is logically consistent with the preceding turn, building cohesively on the ongoing topic of Masha and Hero's divorce. Speaker B consistently asks relevant follow-up questions (e.g., \"What do you mean?\", \"What happened?\", \"How come no one noticed?\", \"What about the kids?\", \"When would their divorce be final?\"), and Speaker A provides clear and coherent answers, even when interrupted (e.g., \"I was going to say they filed for divorce,\" \"I was about to say they worked out the other details too\"). The conversation stays focused on the central theme, exploring details like the timeline of the separation, the reasons behind the divorce, public awareness, and practicalities like custody and assets. There are no irrelevant tangents or abrupt topic shifts, demonstrating strong topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the pauses indicated are all brief (1 second or less), which is natural for conversation and allows for processing. While there are instances of overlapping speech (e.g., Speaker B starting at 00:14 while Speaker A is still speaking at 00:15, and Speaker B starting at 00:41 while Speaker A is still speaking at 00:41), these are brief (1 second or immediate cut-off) and appear functional rather than disruptive. In both cases, Speaker B interjects for clarification or to re-focus the conversation on a specific detail (\"Did you say two months?\", \"Did they already work out the custody details?\"), and in the second instance, Speaker B even apologizes (\"Sorry, I just realized—\"). These brief overlaps and immediate responses indicate active listening and engagement, contributing to a natural and dynamic conversational flow, rather than hindering it. They do not constitute \"prolonged\" overlapping turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--97121",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hi, I'm looking for a new sofa and I think I've finally found the perfect one\n[00:04 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but have you considered the size of the sofa in relation to your living room space? Sometimes, even the perfect sofa can feel overwhelming if the dimensions aren't quite right.\n[00:13 - 00:24] Speaker A: That's a good point. I did measure, and it should fit perfectly. I've been eyeing a certain style and color for months now. It's this really beautiful navy blue velvet.\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: That sounds gorgeous! We have that exact sofa in stock. Would you like to take a look at it?\n[00:29 - 00:31] Speaker A: Yes, please! I'll take it.\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker B: Great! Our delivery team will be able to bring it to your home in just a few days.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining topic coherence throughout the conversation about buying a sofa.\n\n*   Speaker A introduces the topic of finding a perfect sofa.\n*   Speaker B's interjection about sofa size is a highly relevant practical consideration in furniture shopping. It shows a helpful, customer-service oriented approach.\n*   Speaker A acknowledges Speaker B's point and then elaborates on the specific sofa they are interested in, providing more details (style, color), which is a natural progression.\n*   Speaker B's immediate confirmation of availability and offer to show the sofa directly responds to Speaker A's description.\n*   Speaker A's decision to \"take it\" is a direct and relevant response to the confirmation of availability, even if slightly expedited for a short dialogue. It implies that the description matched their long-held desire.\n*   Speaker B's final response about delivery is the logical next step after a purchase decision.\n\nThere are no instances of irrelevant information, topic shifts, or illogical jumps in conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one indicated overlap at `[00:04 - 00:13]` where Speaker B starts speaking at `00:04` while Speaker A finishes at `00:05`. This is a very brief 1-second overlap, and Speaker B explicitly manages it by saying \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes it feel natural and polite rather than disruptive. The prompt states that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this fits that description.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The conversation flows smoothly and without hesitation, indicating a natural and efficient exchange of information. The timestamps show immediate transitions between speakers.\n\nThe dialogue feels natural and well-paced, avoiding any awkward silences or disruptive interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--95730",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Chyna! Let me sharpen your pencil for you.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Oh, thanks, Edmond. That's really sweet of you.\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: No problem at all! I know how hard it can be to try and write with a dull pencil, so I figured I could help you\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: Actually, that reminds me, do you have any extra pencils? I seem to keep losing mine.\n[00:17 - 00:30] Speaker A: Oh, I do have a few extras. I was just saying that I figured I could help you out because I know how frustrating it can be when you can't get your thoughts down on paper because your pencil is dull.\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker B: Yeah, it definitely is. Thanks again for sharpening my pencil, Edmond.\n[00:35 - 00:40] Speaker A: No problem! And if you ever need another pencil, just let me know.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement.\n- Speaker B's initial response (\"Oh, thanks, Edmond. That's really sweet of you.\") is a direct and appropriate acknowledgment of Speaker A's offer.\n- Speaker A's explanation of their motivation (\"No problem at all! I know how hard it can be...\") logically follows Speaker B's gratitude.\n- Speaker B's transition (\"Actually, that reminds me, do you have any extra pencils?\") is a natural and coherent shift within the broader topic of pencils and writing, directly prompted by the previous discussion.\n- Speaker A then directly answers the question about extra pencils (\"Oh, I do have a few extras.\") However, Speaker A then reiterates their previous reasoning for helping (\"I was just saying that I figured I could help you out because I know how frustrating it can be when you can't get your thoughts down on paper because your pencil is dull.\"). While not irrelevant, this part is slightly redundant and less efficient, as the point was already made and Speaker B had moved on to a new query. This doesn't break logical consistency or topic coherence, but it makes the turn slightly less concise.\n- Speaker B's final response (\"Yeah, it definitely is. Thanks again for sharpening my pencil, Edmond.\") acknowledges Speaker A's point (about frustration) and reiterates gratitude, bringing the conversation to a natural close.\n- Speaker A's concluding remark (\"No problem! And if you ever need another pencil, just let me know.\") is a polite and helpful closing, connecting back to the offer of extra pencils.\nOverall, the dialogue flows logically, and the topic remains coherent throughout, despite one slightly redundant statement from Speaker A.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is very good.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap: Speaker B starts speaking at [00:12] while Speaker A's previous turn ends at [00:13]. This is a 1-second overlap. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This is not an extended overlap; it sounds like a natural, eager interjection that builds on the previous statement (\"Actually, that reminds me\").\n- **Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn at [00:16] and Speaker A's turn at [00:17]. This is a very brief and natural pause, not a \"long pause\" that would indicate a breakdown in turn-taking.\nThere are no other noticeable prolonged pauses or extended overlapping turns that would disrupt the natural flow of the conversation. The turn-taking feels smooth and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--123546",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: My car won't start and I don't know how to fix it. I've tried a few things, but so far nothing has worked, and\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: What kind of things have you tried? Maybe I can help you figure it out.\n[00:10 - 00:22] Speaker A: Well, first I checked the battery and made sure the terminals were clean. Then I checked the oil and made sure that was at the right level. After that, I tried starting the car, but it still wouldn't turn over,\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B: Did you happen to check the spark plugs? Sometimes if they're dirty or need to be replaced, that can cause starting problems.\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker A: I hadn't thought of that. I'll have to try it and see if it makes a difference.\n[00:33 - 00:35] Speaker B: Let me know how it goes. I'm sure you'll figure it out!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker A introduces a problem (car won't start), and Speaker B immediately responds with an offer of help and a request for more information, which is logically consistent with the problem stated. Speaker A then provides the requested details, and Speaker B offers a relevant diagnostic suggestion (spark plugs). Speaker A acknowledges this suggestion and indicates intent to follow it, and Speaker B provides a concluding encouraging remark. The conversation stays consistently on the topic of car troubleshooting, with each turn building coherently on the previous one. There are no instances of irrelevant responses or logical inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two brief overlaps detected:\n- [00:06 - 00:07]: Speaker B starts speaking one second before Speaker A finishes their sentence. This is a very common and natural conversational overlap, indicating active listening and smooth turn-taking rather than interruption or disruption.\n- [00:21 - 00:22]: Similarly, Speaker B starts speaking one second before Speaker A finishes. This also points to active engagement and a fluid transition between turns.\nNeither of these overlaps is \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" in a way that would be harmful to the conversation.\n\nRegarding pauses, there is a one-second pause between [00:32] and [00:33]. This is a very short, natural pause that does not impede the flow of the conversation. There are no \"long\" or \"prolonged\" pauses that would suggest hesitation or difficulty in the interaction. The pacing feels natural and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--477",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi, how's it going?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: I've never cooked before.\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: That's ok! I'm a little rusty myself, but I still enjoy experimenting with\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: Could you teach me how to cook?\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: Absolutely! I can whip up a delicious brunch or dinner in no time.\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker B: I hope I don't screw anything up!\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker A: As long as you use common sense, everything should turn out great.\n[00:21 - 00:22] Speaker B: Thanks! You're really nice.\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker A: Not at all! I'm happy to help a total stranger.\n[00:26 - 00:28] Speaker B: That's so kind! What should I do now?\n[00:29 - 00:38] Speaker A: If you look at the kitchen, you'll see a nice set of cookware. Use the frying pan on the stove to cook the bacon and cook the eggs in the frying pan as\n[00:36 - 00:39] Speaker B: Ooooh, now I understand. You must be a professional chef!\n[00:40 - 00:52] Speaker A: Lol, no. It's just that I enjoy cooking a lot and I'm a natural born teacher. But I didn't finish explaining about the eggs. When they're done, you can plate them on the table.\n[00:52 - 00:55] Speaker B: I'm really looking forward to the delicious brunch that you're making!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turn from Speaker B ([00:01 - 00:03] \"I've never cooked before\") is a major issue regarding response relevance. Speaker A's opening is a general greeting, and B's response is completely unrelated, breaking logical consistency and topic coherence from the very beginning. Speaker A then attempts to salvage the conversation by adapting to B's random statement, which Speaker B follows up on.\n\nLater, at [00:52 - 00:55], Speaker B says, \"I'm really looking forward to the delicious brunch that you're making!\" This shows a slight logical inconsistency. Speaker A just finished instructing B on how to cook the eggs (\"When they're done, you can plate them on the table\"), implying B is doing the cooking. Speaker B's statement suggests A is making the brunch, which contradicts the established teaching/learning dynamic.\n\nWhile Speaker A's responses are generally relevant and try to maintain coherence, Speaker B's contributions contain significant relevance issues, particularly at the beginning and a minor one at the end.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are two instances of speaker overlap where Speaker A is cut off mid-sentence.\n1.  At [00:07 - 00:09], Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still talking (\"experimenting with\"), cutting A off. This is a brief overlap but still disruptive as it cuts off A's sentence.\n2.  More significantly, at [00:36 - 00:39], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A who is in the middle of giving detailed instructions (\"cook the eggs in the frying pan as\"). This is an extended overlap that is clearly harmful, as it disrupts the flow of crucial information and makes the conversation feel less natural and efficient.\n\nThere are no prolonged pauses between turns; any pauses are brief and acceptable. However, the extended overlap is a significant fluency issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--471",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Do you like movies?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much, I'm more of a sports guy.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: Oh that's okay. I'm a huge Martin Scorsese fan!\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker B: Yeah, but I never really got into his style of\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but have you ever tried watching one of his classics, like \"Taxi Driver\"? It might change your mind!\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker B: I haven't, but I'm more of a baseball fan.\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker A: Oh I see. Would you like to watch a movie tonight? I know a great Scorsese movie called Goodfellas that I\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker B: Actually, I was thinking of catching the baseball game tonight. How about you join me?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A consistently attempts to engage Speaker B in a conversation about movies, specifically Martin Scorsese, while Speaker B consistently expresses a preference for sports, particularly baseball. Each turn builds upon the previous one, even when the speakers have differing interests. Speaker A acknowledges Speaker B's preference (\"Oh that's okay,\" \"Oh I see\") and tries to bridge the gap (e.g., suggesting \"Taxi Driver\" or \"Goodfellas\"). Speaker B politely but firmly reiterates their interest in sports, eventually inviting Speaker A to join them. The topic coherence is maintained throughout, as the conversation revolves around leisure activities and personal preferences, with a clear back-and-forth and attempt at negotiation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns that would indicate an issue.\n- At [00:10], Speaker A explicitly states \"Sorry to jump in,\" indicating a brief, acknowledged overlap or an immediate cut-in. This makes the interaction feel natural and dynamic, rather than an unnatural interruption. Since B's turn ends at 00:10 and A's starts at 00:10, it implies a very tight turn-taking or a minimal overlap, which is acceptable.\n- At [00:26 - 00:31], Speaker B starts speaking at 00:26 while Speaker A's turn ends at 00:27. This represents a brief overlap of 1 second. This is a common and natural occurrence in conversation, especially when one speaker anticipates the end of another's thought or is eager to respond, and it does not appear prolonged or harmful to the flow.\nBoth instances of overlap are brief and contribute to a natural conversational rhythm, rather than detracting from it.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--89019",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: So I hear that you're thinking about going to college.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm thinking about it.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: What made you decide to go back to school at\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to cut you off, but it's not really about deciding. It's more like I feel this strong need to do it, you know?\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker A: Yeah, I get that. Do you have any idea what you want to study?\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B: Not really. I'm just going to take a few general education classes and figure it out as I\n[00:22 - 00:30] Speaker A: Maybe starting with general classes will help you discover what truly interests you. Have you thought about talking to a counselor to help guide you?\n[00:30 - 00:33] Speaker B: That's a good idea. I might do that to get some direction.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining clear topic coherence around the subject of going to college.\n- Speaker B's initial response [00:03-00:05] directly answers Speaker A's opening question.\n- Speaker B's explanation at [00:07-00:13] addresses Speaker A's incomplete question about the decision, clarifying their motivation. This is logically consistent and adds depth to the topic.\n- Speaker A's follow-up at [00:13-00:17] acknowledges B's previous statement and smoothly transitions to the next logical question about study plans.\n- Speaker B's response at [00:18-00:23] directly answers A's question.\n- Speaker A's advice and new question at [00:22-00:30] build on Speaker B's previous statement about general classes, showing active listening and topic progression.\n- Speaker B's final response at [00:30-00:33] directly addresses Speaker A's suggestion, confirming understanding and intent.\nThere are no instances of off-topic remarks or illogical jumps in conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with minor points for consideration regarding overlaps.\n- There is a brief overlap between [00:07] and [00:08] where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still mid-sentence. Speaker B explicitly apologizes for this, stating \"Sorry to cut you off,\" which indicates it was a noticeable interruption, even if brief (approximately 1 second). According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" While the overlap is brief in duration, B's acknowledgment suggests it was perceived as a \"cut-off\" or \"overlapping turn.\"\n- A second brief overlap occurs between [00:22] and [00:23] where Speaker A begins speaking as Speaker B is finishing their sentence (\"figure it out as I\"). This overlap is also brief (approximately 1 second) and seems more like a natural, anticipatory turn-taking rather than a forceful interruption, especially since Speaker B's sentence was trailing off.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\nOverall, despite the two brief overlaps, the conversation flows relatively smoothly. The brevity of the overlaps prevents them from significantly harming the interaction, even if one was acknowledged as a cut-off.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--140091",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What are you all laughing at?\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: We're laughing at your ugly, pock-marked face. You look like a pizza with\n[00:04 - 00:15] Speaker A: Hold on, that's really hurtful. I don't think my face is ugly. I think it's unique and interesting. And I don't appreciate you making fun of me. It's not nice.\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: We're just teasing you, Jamaica. We don't really think your face is ugly. We were just trying to\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A: I get that you might be joking, but I don't like being teased. It's not funny.\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: Sorry, Jamaica. We won't tease you anymore.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement.\n- Speaker B's initial response directly answers Speaker A's question.\n- Speaker A's subsequent turn logically expresses hurt and sets a boundary in response to Speaker B's offensive comment.\n- Speaker B then attempts to clarify and de-escalate, which is a logical follow-up to Speaker A's reaction.\n- Speaker A acknowledges Speaker B's intent but firmly reiterates their dislike for the teasing, maintaining coherence.\n- Speaker B's final apology and promise are a logical conclusion to the interaction, showing understanding and willingness to comply with Speaker A's boundary.\nTopic coherence is maintained throughout, focusing on the initial comment, the resulting hurt, and the resolution.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are two instances of brief overlap:\n- `[00:04 - 00:15] Speaker A:` overlaps with `[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B:` for 1 second (from 0:04 to 0:05).\n- `[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A:` overlaps with `[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B:` for 1 second (from 0:19 to 0:20).\nAccording to the instructions, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" A 1-second overlap is considered brief and is quite natural, especially in a dynamic or emotionally charged conversation where one speaker might interject to express a strong feeling or respond quickly. These brief overlaps do not disrupt the flow or understanding of the dialogue; rather, they contribute to its naturalistic feel. There are no long pauses between turns. The interaction flows smoothly without significant impediments.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--480",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I don't know what to have for breakfast today. I like Greek yogurt, but I also like to try new things. Have you ever had these?\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker B: I don't think I have.\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: They are great! I like to make some fruit on top and sprinkle some cinnamon. Yum! It gives\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker B: Oh, that sounds amazing! But have you ever tried adding honey or nuts to your yogurt?\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker A: Yes, honey is a great addition! I haven't tried nuts yet, though. By the way, I was going to mention that I'm a big fan of waffles.\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker B: Waffles are fantastic too! Have you ever considered making a yogurt and fruit topping for your waffles?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n- **[0:00-0:07] Speaker A -> [0:08-0:09] Speaker B:** Speaker B's response \"I don't think I have\" is a direct and relevant answer to Speaker A's question \"Have you ever had these?\". This shows good logical consistency.\n- **[0:10-0:15] Speaker A -> [0:15-0:19] Speaker B:** Speaker B's reaction (\"Oh, that sounds amazing!\") and subsequent suggestion about adding honey or nuts to yogurt are highly relevant and build upon Speaker A's description of how they eat yogurt. The topic remains coherent (yogurt, breakfast, toppings).\n- **[0:20-0:28] Speaker A:** Speaker A first addresses B's suggestion (\"Yes, honey is a great addition! I haven't tried nuts yet, though.\"). This part maintains relevance. However, Speaker A then introduces a new topic (\"By the way, I was going to mention that I'm a big fan of waffles.\"). While still food-related, this is a distinct topic shift from the specific yogurt discussion. It's not illogical, but it's a less smooth transition than previous turns.\n- **[0:29-0:34] Speaker B:** Speaker B acknowledges the new topic (\"Waffles are fantastic too!\") and then cleverly attempts to re-integrate it with the original theme by suggesting \"a yogurt and fruit topping for your waffles?\". This demonstrates strong topic coherence and an effort to maintain conversational flow despite Speaker A's shift.\n\nOverall, the responses are largely relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A introduces a slight topic detour with waffles, but Speaker B adeptly bridges it back, maintaining overall topic coherence in the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue timestamps indicate excellent interactional fluency.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Speaker B responds immediately after Speaker A finishes speaking in all turns ([0:07] to [0:08], [0:15] to [0:15], [0:28] to [0:29]).\n- There are no extended overlaps indicated by the timestamps. Speakers take turns cleanly without stepping on each other's lines for prolonged periods.\nThis suggests a natural and smooth conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--73",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: No problem. I need some markers, some color pencils, a pair of scissors, some highlighter, rulers... maybe some\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but do we have enough budget to buy all these items? I just realized we might need to check that first.\n[00:13 - 00:23] Speaker A: Good point, but I think we should be fine. I was saying I also need thumbtacks, whiteout, and paper clips. Which shelf are they on? I can't find the number.\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker B: It's at the back. I think you are near-sighted. You had better get yourself a pair of nice glasses.\n[00:28 - 00:37] Speaker A: Glasses might help, but could you remind me again which shelf has the markers, color pencils, and highlighters? I missed that part earlier.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence due to Speaker B's remarks.\n1.  **Speaker A (0:00-0:07):** Initiates with a clear task: listing items needed.\n2.  **Speaker B (0:06-0:13):** Introduces a relevant logistical concern (budget), which is a logical follow-up to a list of items.\n3.  **Speaker A (0:13-0:23):** Acknowledges the budget point and dismisses it briefly, then redirects back to the original task of finding items, asking for shelf location. This is logically consistent with their initial goal.\n4.  **Speaker B (0:23-0:28):** Responds to the shelf location, but then makes an entirely irrelevant and inappropriate personal comment (\"I think you are near-sighted. You had better get yourself a pair of nice glasses.\"). This is a major deviation from the topic and is not logically consistent with the ongoing task of finding office supplies. It introduces an element of personal criticism that is out of place.\n5.  **Speaker A (0:28-0:37):** Attempts to steer the conversation back on track, acknowledging the irrelevant comment briefly but immediately re-asking the original question about item location.\n\n**Conclusion for Relevance:** The primary issue is Speaker B's off-topic and somewhat rude comment about Speaker A's eyesight. This significantly detracts from the relevance and professionalism of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good.\n1.  **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap from 0:06 to 0:07. Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing a word (\"some\"). Speaker B explicitly mitigates this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and politeness, making it an acceptable and natural part of conversation. This is not an \"extended overlap\" and does not harm fluency.\n2.  **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Each speaker responds promptly after the other finishes.\n**Conclusion for Fluency:** The dialogue flows naturally without problematic overlaps or noticeable long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--428",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:13] Speaker A: So, my boyfriend and I are planning a trip to the Amazon this year. I want to see the jungle and get close to the wildlife, but I want to stay safe and stay in the tour boat. Do you have any recommendations for specific tour\n[00:12 - 00:21] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but have you thought about specific areas you want to visit in the Amazon? Some areas are safer and more tourist-friendly than others.\n[00:21 - 00:34] Speaker A: I'm not really the person to talk to about this. My mother and father are anthropologists and my brother is a zoologist, so I do have an idea of what's dangerous and what isn't. Have you considered talking to your boyfriend about it?\n[00:35 - 00:43] Speaker B: Yeah, but I feel more comfortable talking to a person who lives there. I want to learn more about what I'll see, but I don't want to ruin my trip by doing something stupid.\n[00:43 - 01:00] Speaker A: I can understand that. Maybe you should talk to your boyfriend again. If he doesn't want to help, you can talk to my mom and dad. My dad works as a park ranger and does a lot of research on wildlife. My mom is a biologist. They can both tell you about the\n[00:59 - 01:05] Speaker B: That sounds really helpful! But what if I need some advice before tomorrow? Is there any quick tip you can give me right now?\n[01:06 - 01:14] Speaker A: Sure, one quick tip is to always wear long sleeves and pants to protect yourself from insects. As for my parents, I'll have them call you tomorrow.\n[01:15 - 01:18] Speaker B: Awesome! I'll have them call me. Do you have their contact information?\n[01:19 - 01:24] Speaker A: I'll be happy to share it with you, but I have to run. I'll have my mom and dad call you tomorrow.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance is significantly flawed, primarily due to Speaker A's turn at [00:21 - 00:34]. Speaker A initiates the conversation by asking for recommendations for an Amazon trip, yet immediately after Speaker B offers a relevant clarifying question, Speaker A states, \"I'm not really the person to talk to about this.\" This directly contradicts Speaker A's opening statement and purpose in the conversation. Speaker A then pivots to talking about their family's professions and oddly asks Speaker B if they've considered talking to *their* (Speaker B's) boyfriend. This creates a logical inconsistency and a jarring topic shift, as Speaker A, the initiator of the request for advice, suddenly acts as if they are unable or unwilling to receive it and even deflects the conversation back to Speaker B's personal relationships. While Speaker A eventually offers relevant resources (their parents) later in the dialogue, the initial deflection and contradiction severely hamper the logical consistency and coherence of the conversation from Speaker A's side. Speaker B, on the other hand, maintains topic coherence and tries to navigate Speaker A's confusing responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are two brief, acceptable overlaps: Speaker B at [00:12 - 00:21] slightly cuts in on Speaker A's last word, and Speaker B again at [00:59 - 01:05] overlaps briefly with Speaker A. These are minor and natural conversational overlaps, indicating engagement rather than disruption. There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The dialogue flows at a natural pace in terms of timing.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--16339",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:14] Speaker A: I'm so sick of you calling me, Menachem! I've told you a million times to stop, but you just don't listen. You're just like a broken record, always saying the same thing over and over again. I can't take it anymore! Just leave me alone\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: Belle, wait! What do you mean by that? I thought we were friends. Why are you being so cold all of a sudden?\n[00:20 - 00:35] Speaker A: We were never friends, Menachem. You were just someone who I tolerated because I had to for work. But now that we're not working together anymore, there's no reason for us to talk. So please, just stop calling me. It's really getting on my nerves.\n[00:35 - 00:43] Speaker B: Belle, I'm sorry if I'm bugging you. I just really miss talking to you. We used to have such great conversations. Don't you ever think\n[00:42 - 00:55] Speaker A: Miss that? No, Menachem, I don't. In fact, I'm glad we're not talking anymore. It was always so draining trying to keep up with your never-ending stream of words. I'm much happier now that I don't have to deal with that anymore.\n[00:56 - 00:59] Speaker B: Well, I guess there's nothing left to say then. Goodbye, Belle.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous speaker's statement.\n*   Speaker B's initial response (\"Belle, wait! What do you mean by that?\") directly reacts to Speaker A's aggressive opening.\n*   Speaker A's subsequent explanation of their relationship and reiteration of the request to stop calling (\"We were never friends... So please, just stop calling me.\") directly answers B's confusion.\n*   Speaker B's apology and expression of missing conversations (\"I'm sorry if I'm bugging you. I just really miss talking to you.\") is a direct counter to A's rejection.\n*   Speaker A's firm refutation of missing the conversations and explanation of why (\"No, Menachem, I don't. In fact, I'm glad we're not talking anymore. It was always so draining...\") directly negates B's attempt to reminisce.\n*   Speaker B's final statement (\"Well, I guess there's nothing left to say then. Goodbye, Belle.\") logically concludes the conversation, acknowledging A's clear and final stance.\nThe topic coherence is maintained throughout, focusing on the strained relationship and the desire to end communication. Logical consistency is high, as each turn advances the emotional conflict and resolution.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a dynamic and continuous conversation flow. There are two instances of brief overlap:\n*   [00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A for 1 second. Speaker B says \"Belle, wait!\" which is an interjection often used to stop someone mid-sentence, reflecting a strong immediate reaction to Speaker A's outburst. This brief overlap is natural and does not hinder comprehension.\n*   [00:42 - 00:55] Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B for 1 second. Speaker A starts speaking as Speaker B is saying \"Don't you ever think\". This interruption by Speaker A is consistent with their strong negative feelings and desire to immediately shut down Speaker B's nostalgic line of thought. This brief overlap also feels natural given the emotional intensity of the dialogue and does not impede the conversation's flow or understanding.\nBoth overlaps are brief and serve to emphasize the emotional urgency and directness of the speakers, rather than causing confusion or disruption. They fall under the \"brief overlaps... are acceptable\" criteria.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--40241",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Wow, this place is incredible! The water is so blue and the air is so refreshing, it's\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but I just have to say, isn't it amazing how the colors here are so vibrant? The blues, the greens—they're just unreal.\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker A: Absolutely, it's like everything here is in high definition. And the air is so fresh too. I can't believe I waited so long to come here.\n[00:22 - 00:30] Speaker B: Well, better late than never. Maui is definitely a special place. There's just something about it that makes you feel relaxed and at peace.\n[00:30 - 00:38] Speaker A: I know what you mean. I was swimming in the ocean earlier and I felt like I could just float there forever. It was amazing.\n[00:38 - 00:44] Speaker B: Yeah, the ocean has a way of doing that to you. So have you been doing much exploring around the island? There\n[00:43 - 01:01] Speaker A: Actually, yes! I rented a car and have been driving around a lot. There's just so much to see here! Yesterday I went hiking up to one of the lookouts and the views were breathtaking. And today I just kind of chilled on the beach and soaked up some sun. Tomorrow I'm thinking about going on a whale watching tour.\n[01:02 - 01:05] Speaker B: That sounds like a lot of fun! I've always wanted to do that.\n[01:05 - 01:14] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm really looking forward to it. I've heard there's a chance you might even be able to swim with them if you're lucky.\n[01:14 - 01:18] Speaker B: Oh, that would be incredible! I hope we get to see some whales tomorrow.\n[01:18 - 01:22] Speaker A: Me too. Either way, it should be a great day out on the water.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the ongoing conversation.\n- Speaker B's initial interruption (0:05) directly addresses Speaker A's initial observation (0:00-0:05) about the beauty of the place, focusing on colors which aligns with \"blue water.\" The apology \"Sorry to jump in\" acknowledges this, making it interactionally smooth.\n- Speaker A's response (0:13-0:21) confirms B's point and elaborates, maintaining topic coherence.\n- The conversation flows smoothly from general admiration of the place (Maui) to personal experiences (swimming, exploring) and future plans (whale watching).\n- Speaker B introduces new sub-topics (0:22-0:30, 0:38-0:44) seamlessly, allowing Speaker A to expand on their experiences.\n- All questions are answered directly, and comments are responded to appropriately. The topic transitions are natural and unforced.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the conversation moves at a natural, engaging pace.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - At [00:05], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. This is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Sorry to jump in\"), making it a natural and polite interruption rather than a disruptive one. It indicates eagerness to participate.\n    - At [00:43], Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This is a very common and natural phenomenon in conversational speech, especially when a speaker is eager to respond to a direct question (\"So have you been doing much exploring around the island? There\"). The overlap is brief (1 second) and does not hinder understanding or disrupt the flow.\nThese minor overlaps contribute to the naturalistic feel of the dialogue, demonstrating active listening and engagement rather than causing confusion or awkwardness. They are not \"extended overlaps\" that would be considered harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--593",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'd like to make chicken and rice for dinner tonight. I found this recipe on the internet and it looks pretty easy to follow, even\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: Is there anything I should do while you're cooking?\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A: No, I think I can handle it. I've been cooking for myself for years now. Do you have any\n[00:13 - 00:14] Speaker B: How do you make rice?\n[00:15 - 00:24] Speaker A: You pour the water into a pot and add the rice. Then you add a little bit of salt. I'm going to leave the stove on for a while. Can I go now?\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: That sounds great! I'll start measuring the ingredients.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance and logical consistency, particularly in the latter half.\n\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A** sets the context.\n2.  **[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B** offers help, which is a relevant response to Speaker A's stated task.\n3.  **[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A** declines help and starts to ask a question. This is relevant to B's previous offer.\n4.  **[00:13 - 00:14] Speaker B** interrupts A's unfinished question to ask \"How do you make rice?\". While related to the *overall* topic of making chicken and rice, it abruptly shifts the immediate sub-topic from offering/declining help to a procedural question, cutting off A. This shows a slight break in the natural flow of the conversation's immediate focus.\n5.  **[00:15 - 00:24] Speaker A** initially answers B's question about making rice. However, the latter part of the utterance (\"I'm going to leave the stove on for a while. Can I go now?\") is highly illogical and inconsistent. If Speaker A is making dinner and has just described a cooking step, announcing they will \"leave the stove on\" and asking \"Can I go now?\" completely breaks the persona and the logical flow of the conversation. It suggests a desire to abandon the activity or the conversation, which is nonsensical in this context. This is a major failure in logical consistency and topic coherence.\n6.  **[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B** responds with \"That sounds great! I'll start measuring the ingredients.\" This response completely ignores Speaker A's highly problematic \"Can I go now?\". Speaker B's response appears to be reacting to the *idea* of cooking or the earlier instructions, rather than processing Speaker A's direct and very unusual question. This demonstrates a clear lack of logical consistency in Speaker B's understanding and response to Speaker A's immediate preceding statement.\n\nIn summary, Speaker A's final statement is highly illogical and out of context, and Speaker B's failure to acknowledge or address it further highlights a breakdown in the interaction's logical consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally acceptable, as per the given criteria that \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\".\n\n1.  **[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A:** Speaker B starts at 0:06 while Speaker A finishes at 0:07. This is a 1-second overlap. This is a brief overlap and falls within the acceptable range.\n2.  **[00:13 - 00:14] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A:** Speaker B starts at 0:13 while Speaker A finishes at 0:14. This is also a 1-second overlap. This is a brief overlap and falls within the acceptable range, although it functions as an interruption.\n3.  **[00:14 - 00:15] Pause:** There is a 1-second gap between Speaker A's end and Speaker B's start. This is a small pause and acceptable.\n4.  **[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B starts exactly as Speaker A finishes:** Speaker B starts at 0:24, the exact same time Speaker A finishes at 0:24. This indicates good turn-taking without any noticeable pause or overlap.\n\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected. The brief overlaps and small pauses are within acceptable limits.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--488",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: It's grandpa's birthday next week. We must have a surprise party.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: A party? Do you mean you want to have loud music and food every time we\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: Well, no, but grandpa will. You know he loves jazz.\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker B: OK, well, how about having it at a hotel?\n[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker A: Hotels are expensive, and it's too cold for a garden party at this time of year. We really should have it here at our house.\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B: Ok, I suppose you're right. What food should we have?\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker A: Oh, I'll make some pizzas, and I'm sure grandma will make a birthday cake.\n[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker B: Yes, I'm sure she will. I'll make some salad, then. What do you think I should get him?\n[00:36 - 00:45] Speaker A: Let me think. No scarves or hats. I'm giving him a scarf and grandpa just bought a hat last month. What about a book? He reads a lot.\n[00:46 - 00:52] Speaker B: Ok, good idea. Oh, by the way, you mentioned food earlier—did you say what day we should plan to have the party?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building upon the conversation naturally.\n- Speaker B's initial question about the \"party\" (loud music, food) directly addresses Speaker A's suggestion, seeking clarification.\n- Speaker A clarifies, staying on the topic of the party and grandpa's preferences (jazz).\n- The discussion then moves logically through party logistics: location (hotel vs. house), food (pizzas, cake, salad), and gifts.\n- Speaker B's \"What do you think I should get him?\" is a direct and relevant follow-up to the party planning.\n- Speaker A's gift suggestions are appropriate responses.\n- Speaker B's final question about the day of the party, introduced with \"by the way,\" is a natural way to circle back to a previously unaddressed but highly relevant detail for party planning. The conversation remains entirely focused on the surprise birthday party for grandpa. There are no sudden topic shifts or illogical jumps.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates good fluency with only one brief overlap and no long pauses.\n- **Overlap at [00:07 - 00:08]:** Speaker A starts speaking at 00:07 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:08 (\"...every time we\"). This is a 1-second overlap where Speaker A cuts off Speaker B. According to the guidelines, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This is a common and natural occurrence in dynamic conversations, often indicating eagerness to respond or clarify, as is the case here where Speaker A interrupts to correct Speaker B's assumption. It does not disrupt the flow negatively or indicate a breakdown in turn-taking.\n- **Pauses:** All pauses between speaker turns are very short (0-1 second), indicating a fluid and natural exchange without any noticeable hesitation or awkward silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--15140",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Oh, the sunset is so beautiful tonight.\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yes, it is. I love how the colors change in the sky as the sun sets.\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: It's so peaceful to watch. I feel so calm and serene when I just let\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but do you ever feel like sunsets are a reminder to slow down? Like, in the middle of our busy lives, they just force us to pause?\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker A: Absolutely, that's exactly what I was about to say! It's like all of my worries just disappear for a little while.\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker B: That's why I love sunsets so much. They always make me feel better, no matter what kind of day I've had.\n[00:32 - 00:39] Speaker A: I need to remember to appreciate them more often. Life gets so busy and I forget to just stop and take in\n[00:38 - 00:42] Speaker B: And just breathe, right? We get so caught up in everything that we miss these little moments.\n[00:42 - 00:48] Speaker A: Yes, exactly. We should all take a moment to appreciate the beauty around us more often.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance throughout.\n-   **Logical consistency:** Each speaker's turn builds logically on the previous one. Speaker B's initial response (0:02-0:06) directly acknowledges Speaker A's observation and elaborates. Speaker B's \"cutting in\" (0:11-0:19) introduces a slightly deeper, philosophical angle to the sunset's meaning, which is a logical extension of Speaker A's \"peaceful, calm, serene\" feeling. Speaker A's enthusiastic agreement (\"Absolutely, that's exactly what I was about to say!\") reinforces this consistency. The later turns about \"life gets so busy\" and \"missing little moments\" logically flow from the idea of sunsets forcing us to pause and appreciate.\n-   **Topic coherence:** The conversation remains tightly focused on the appreciation and meaning of sunsets. There are no irrelevant tangents or abrupt topic shifts. The speakers collaboratively explore different facets of the main topic, moving from simple aesthetic appreciation to the deeper personal impact of sunsets on their well-being and perspective on life.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits high interactional fluency.\n-   **Extended overlaps:** There are no extended or disruptive overlaps.\n    -   At [0:11], Speaker B briefly cuts into Speaker A's turn. However, Speaker B immediately acknowledges this with \"Sorry to cut in,\" which makes the interruption polite and natural, rather than harmful. It suggests eagerness to contribute.\n    -   At [0:38], Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A, seemingly completing Speaker A's thought (\"And just breathe, right?\"). This type of collaborative overlap is a strong indicator of engagement and shared understanding, making the conversation feel very natural and dynamic, not disruptive.\n-   **Long pauses:** There are no long or awkward pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are smooth and timely, with only brief, natural pauses (e.g., 1 second between 0:06 and 0:07, and 0:26 and 0:27). These brief pauses are well within acceptable limits and contribute to a natural conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--423",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Would you like to know about benefits and so improve your\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Please. Everyone enjoys hearing the benefits of something!\n[00:06 - 00:22] Speaker A: With this agreement we can bring over you many benefits. For example, head offices of your group companies can get really prompt integrated fund transfers and centralised allocations. This helps internal supervision and admin run more efficiently,\n[00:21 - 00:29] Speaker B: That is wonderful. But speaking of internal supervision, how exactly does this system help with that? We've been having serious problems in that area.\n[00:29 - 00:46] Speaker A: It streamlines the process by providing real-time data and automated reporting, which reduces errors and improves transparency. By the way, I hadn't finished mentioning that it also makes admin run smoothly, which should help with your current issues.\n[00:46 - 00:52] Speaker B: Our internal accounts seem so messy at the moment, nothing is running smoothly and it's costing us time and money.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance.\n- Speaker B's initial response \"Please. Everyone enjoys hearing the benefits of something!\" is a direct and positive acknowledgement of Speaker A's offer.\n- Speaker B then picks up on a specific benefit mentioned by Speaker A (\"internal supervision\") and asks a relevant follow-up question, tying it to a stated problem (\"We've been having serious problems in that area.\"). This shows active listening and topical coherence.\n- Speaker A directly addresses Speaker B's question about internal supervision, explaining how the system helps. Speaker A then smoothly transitions back to another related benefit (\"admin run smoothly\") and connects it to B's \"current issues,\" maintaining logical flow.\n- Speaker B's final turn elaborates on the \"messy internal accounts\" problem, directly linking it to Speaker A's mention of \"running smoothly,\" further demonstrating logical consistency and topic coherence. The conversation flows naturally, with each speaker building on the previous turn.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are brief overlaps between Speaker A and Speaker B at `[00:02 - 00:03]` (1 second) and `[00:21 - 00:22]` (1 second). These are short, natural overlaps that indicate active engagement rather than disruptive interruptions. They do not constitute extended overlaps.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. For instance, Speaker A finishes at `00:46` and Speaker B starts immediately at `00:46`, indicating a smooth, natural conversational rhythm.\nThe turns are well-paced, and the flow feels natural and unhindered by timing issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--666",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: You did? Congratulations!\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yeah, I just got a medal for finishing a half marathon.\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: That's great! I love reading about history. Do you have any favorite historical periods\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I just remembered, how did you train for the half marathon?\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: I followed a strict training schedule for months. But back to books, my favorite book is The Great Gatsby.\n[00:21 - 00:22] Speaker B: Have you seen the movie?\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker A: Yeah. I loved it. The book is actually better, but they did a good job with capturing the\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker B: I agree, the book often provides more depth. By the way, what did you think about the portrayal of Gatsby in the movie?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues with **Response Relevance** and **topic coherence**.\n\nSpeaker A initiates two abrupt and unprompted topic changes:\n1.  At [00:05 - 00:10], Speaker A transitions from congratulating Speaker B on a half marathon to \"I love reading about history. Do you have any favorite historical periods?\" This is a sudden and unrelated shift from Speaker B's achievement.\n2.  At [00:15 - 00:21], after Speaker B successfully brings the conversation back to the half marathon (\"how did you train for the half marathon?\"), Speaker A answers the question but immediately pivots again with \"But back to books, my favorite book is The Great Gatsby.\" This demonstrates a consistent lack of engagement with the established topic and an insistence on discussing their own preferred subject (books), regardless of the conversational flow.\n\nSpeaker B attempts to maintain coherence by asking about the marathon training at [00:10 - 00:14] and then following Speaker A's new book topic at [00:21 - 00:22] and [00:27 - 00:33]. However, Speaker A's contributions consistently derail the logical flow and make the conversation feel unnatural and disjointed. Speaker A's responses are not logically consistent with the immediate previous turn's topic, and their topic coherence is poor.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue has one notable issue with **Interactional Fluency** related to overlaps.\n\nAt [00:27 - 00:33], Speaker B begins speaking (\"I agree, the book often provides more depth...\") while Speaker A is still talking (\"...capturing the\"). This is a 1-second overlap where Speaker B cuts off Speaker A mid-sentence, leaving Speaker A's thought unfinished. While not an extremely long overlap, the fact that it causes Speaker A's speech to be truncated makes it a significant detractor from natural conversational flow and qualifies as an interruption that is harmful, rather than a brief acceptable overlap. There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--75",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What are you working on?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: I'm figuring out my budget.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker A: What budget?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: I'm making a shopping budget, so that I don't spend too much on things\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but what kind of things are you planning to buy?\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: Mostly groceries and some household items. But I can only spend $300 a month.\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker A: Why only $300?\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B: I need to save the rest to pay my bills.\n[00:22 - 00:31] Speaker A: By the way, you mentioned earlier that you were making a shopping budget to avoid overspending, but you didn't say how much you were planning to spend on groceries\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker B: Oh, I did—it's $300 a month. I know. It's going to save me a lot of money, I hope.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn builds upon the previous one, clarifying information or moving the conversation forward naturally within the topic of budgeting.\n\n*   Speaker B's initial response about figuring out their budget is directly relevant to Speaker A's opening question.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up questions (\"What budget?\", \"What kind of things?\") are logical clarifications.\n*   Speaker B's explanation of a shopping budget and the amount ($300) directly answers A's inquiries.\n*   Speaker A's question \"Why only $300?\" logically follows the introduction of the specific budget amount.\n*   Speaker B's explanation about saving for bills is a direct and consistent answer.\n*   The only minor deviation in logical consistency occurs in Speaker A's statement at [00:22 - 00:31] (\"you didn't say how much you were planning to spend on groceries\"), as Speaker B had in fact mentioned the $300 amount for groceries/household items earlier. However, Speaker B immediately corrects this factual error in their response, saying \"Oh, I did—it's $300 a month.\" This quick correction restores logical consistency and shows that the conversation is actively managed, even with a minor human-like misremembering. This is not a \"significant issue\" but rather a natural conversational repair.\n\nOverall, the conversation remains coherent and logically consistent.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n*   **Pauses:** All pauses between turns are brief (1 second or less, e.g., 0:04-0:05, 0:16-0:17, 0:21-0:22). These are well within the \"small pauses... are acceptable\" range and contribute to a natural conversational rhythm. There are no long or prolonged pauses that would disrupt the flow.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    *   [00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A starts at 0:07 while Speaker B ends at 0:08 (1-second overlap). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the overlap feel natural and polite rather than disruptive.\n    *   [00:30 - 00:35] Speaker B starts at 0:30 while Speaker A ends at 0:31 (1-second overlap). This overlap occurs as Speaker B naturally corrects Speaker A's misstatement, which is a common and acceptable form of conversational overlap.\nBoth overlaps are brief and contextually appropriate, falling under \"brief overlaps... are acceptable.\" There are no extended or prolonged overlaps.\n\nThe conversation flows smoothly without any noticeable disruptions from pauses or overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--482",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Alright, we need to have a plan here. First of all, which bed do you think you'd\n[00:03 - 00:12] Speaker B: Sorry, before we get to that, I was thinking—should we decide on where to put our stuff first? Like, we both brought stereos, and there's probably only room for one.\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker A: That's a good point. Well, everybody wants the bottom bunk. Why don't we flip a coin for it?\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker B: Alright. Do you have a coin?\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker A: Yes. Here's a quarter. I flip it, you call it in the air.\n[00:25 - 00:26] Speaker B: Heads.\n[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker A: Sorry, it's tails. You lose.\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker B: Oh, well. So you get the bottom bunk. So back to the stereos—your stereo is better than mine. Do you mind if we use yours?\n[00:36 - 00:41] Speaker A: No, I don't mind. I just don't know where we can put the speakers in this tiny room.\n[00:41 - 00:46] Speaker B: Probably we can put one on that counter. And we can put one on the floor by the bed. Over there.\n[00:46 - 00:55] Speaker A: Alright. That's a good plan. What about the desks? We have two desks, one by the window and one by the door? Which one do you think would\n[00:54 - 00:59] Speaker B: Oh, I meant to ask earlier—what about the bed? Did you want to switch later if the top bunk gets uncomfortable?\n[00:59 - 01:07] Speaker A: We can figure that out later if needed. For now, about the desks—the one by the window is nicer, of course. Don't you think?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one. Topic shifts are handled very naturally:\n*   Speaker B's initial interruption (at 0:03) to discuss stereos is logically framed as a prioritization (\"before we get to that\").\n*   Speaker A acknowledges this shift and then returns to the initial topic (beds).\n*   Later, Speaker B's interjection about the bed (at 0:54) is presented as a deferred question (\"I meant to ask earlier\"), which is a natural conversational move.\n*   Speaker A manages this interjection well by briefly addressing it (\"We can figure that out later\") and then smoothly re-directing back to the current topic (desks).\nThere are no irrelevant responses or sudden, unaddressed topic jumps. The conversation flows coherently, demonstrating clear understanding and engagement between the speakers.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n*   There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    *   At [00:03 - 00:12], Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. The overlap duration is approximately 1 second (B starts at 0:03, A ends at 0:04). This is a very common and natural occurrence in conversation, indicating active listening and turn-taking without being disruptive.\n    *   At [00:54 - 00:59], Speaker B again starts speaking about 1 second before Speaker A finishes their sentence (B starts at 0:54, A ends at 0:55). This brief overlap also contributes to a natural conversational rhythm.\n*   There are small pauses of approximately 1 second between turns at [00:20 - 00:21] and [00:35 - 00:36]. These are not \"long pauses\" and are typical for natural speech, allowing for processing and turn-taking.\nCrucially, there are no \"extended overlaps\" or \"prolonged pauses\" that would hinder the flow or indicate communication breakdowns. The timing of turns feels very natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--167",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Are you going anywhere for your vacation?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yes, we're making plans for a tour.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: That'll be lovely. Where are you going?\n[00:08 - 00:16] Speaker B: Well, we will start out from Long Island this Friday. We've planned a four-day drive to Salt Lake City, where we'll join my brother and his family on his fortieth birthday. We're\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker A: Oh, that sounds great! Just curious, do you have any special plans for his birthday celebration?\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker B: Yes, we're planning a surprise party for him. But I was saying, we'll join them on his fortieth birthday.\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker A: Well, you've got to prepare a lot of food and enough sleeping bags then.\n[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker B: Oh, we'll spend the nights in hotels and enjoy local food as we pass by. How does it sound, David?\n[00:38 - 00:41] Speaker A: It sounds good. You can do a lot of sightseeing, too.\n[00:42 - 00:46] Speaker B: Yes, we'll take our time. And we'll go to Five Lake Strict and the Grand Canyon.\n[00:45 - 00:52] Speaker A: Sorry, which places did you mention again? I just wanted to make sure I noted them down correctly.\n[00:53 - 00:55] Speaker B: Sure, we'll visit Five Lake Strict and Wall Street.\n[00:56 - 00:58] Speaker A: So, you're going to have a really nice vacation.\n[00:59 - 01:00] Speaker B: You can say that again.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in Response Relevance.\n1.  **Logical Consistency & Topic Coherence Breakdown (Speaker B):** At [00:42 - 00:46], Speaker B explicitly states they will visit \"Five Lake Strict and the Grand Canyon.\" However, when Speaker A asks for clarification to \"note them down correctly\" at [00:45 - 00:52], Speaker B responds at [00:53 - 00:55] with \"Five Lake Strict and Wall Street.\" This is a major factual inconsistency, as the Grand Canyon and Wall Street are in vastly different geographical locations and represent completely different types of travel experiences. This abrupt and unacknowledged change fundamentally undermines the logical consistency and topic coherence of the vacation plan being discussed.\n2.  **Lack of Attention/Follow-through (Speaker A):** Following Speaker B's inconsistent re-statement of destinations, Speaker A at [00:56 - 00:58] makes a generic closing remark (\"So, you're going to have a really nice vacation.\") without acknowledging or questioning the significant discrepancy, despite having just requested the information specifically to \"note them down correctly.\" This demonstrates a lack of logical consistency in Speaker A's listening and engagement.\n3.  **Minor Inconsistency/Assumption (Speaker A):** At [00:27 - 00:31], Speaker A's suggestion about preparing \"a lot of food and enough sleeping bags\" seems like an unwarranted assumption given B's previous description of driving to a city to join family for a birthday, which implies a more conventional stay, as B subsequently clarifies. While minor, it reflects a slight initial misinterpretation of the context.\n\nThese issues, particularly the unaddressed and significant change in stated destinations, represent a clear breakdown in the logical consistency and topic coherence of the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is generally appropriate and natural.\n1.  **Overlaps:** A brief 1-second overlap occurs at [00:45 - 00:46], where Speaker A begins speaking just as Speaker B concludes their utterance. This is a very common and natural occurrence in fluent conversation, often indicating active listening and turn-taking anticipation. It is not a prolonged or harmful overlapping turn that impedes understanding.\n2.  **Pauses:** There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns. The pauses observed (e.g., 1-second pauses) are small and natural, allowing for processing and turn-taking without disrupting the flow of conversation.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking contribute to a natural and fluent exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--8212",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, can I help you with your boots?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Thanks, that would be great.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: Sure, no problem. Let me just put my stuff down on the\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: Actually, before you do that, could you tell me if you have any experience with these kinds of boots? They're a bit tricky to handle.\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker A: Oh, definitely! I've dealt with similar ones before. Now, let me just put my stuff down first and then\n[00:19 - 00:19] Speaker B: Alright.\n[00:20 - 00:21] Speaker A: So, how are you today?\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker B: I'm doing well, thanks for asking. And you?\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker A: I'm good too. Just wanted to help out a fellow human who might\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker B: That's really kind of you. By the way, do you know if there's a specific way to lace these boots? I've heard it makes a difference.\n[00:35 - 00:43] Speaker A: Yes, there is a technique that ensures they stay snug and comfortable. I'll show you once I finish putting my stuff down and get\n[00:42 - 00:44] Speaker B: Thank you so much, I appreciate it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A consistently offers help with the boots, and Speaker B consistently brings the conversation back to the topic of the boots or related actions (like Speaker A putting down their stuff).\n\n*   Speaker A's initial offer of help is met with a relevant acceptance from Speaker B.\n*   Speaker B's query about Speaker A's experience with the boots is a direct and relevant follow-up to the offer of help, showing a concern for the quality of assistance. Speaker A's response confirms experience.\n*   The brief social pleasantry exchange (\"how are you today?\") is a common and natural digression in casual conversation between strangers or new acquaintances before getting down to the main task. It doesn't derail the conversation; rather, it adds a touch of natural interaction.\n*   Speaker B smoothly pivots back to the boot topic (lacing technique) after the social exchange, demonstrating strong topic coherence.\n*   Speaker A's responses about showing the lacing technique and needing to put their stuff down first are consistent with their earlier statements and the overall context.\n*   Speaker B's final thank you is a relevant closing.\n\nOverall, the conversation maintains a clear focus on the boots and the assistance being offered, with appropriate and logical transitions between sub-topics.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high, despite several instances of brief overlap. The instructions state that \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\"\n\nLet's examine the overlaps and pauses:\n*   **[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B:** Overlaps Speaker A's turn (`[00:04 - 00:08]`) by about 1 second. Speaker A is cut off mid-sentence (\"on the\"). This is an interruptive overlap, but it's brief and serves a clear purpose: Speaker B wants to ask a crucial question *before* Speaker A proceeds with putting down their stuff. This makes the interaction more efficient and natural, as Speaker B is trying to prevent an unnecessary action. It is not prolonged or disruptive.\n*   **[00:19 - 00:19] Speaker B:** Overlaps Speaker A's turn (`[00:13 - 00:20]`) by about 1 second. Speaker A is cut off (\"and then\"). Speaker B's \"Alright\" is a brief acknowledgment, indicating they understand Speaker A's need to put stuff down first. This is a very common and natural type of back-channeling or agreement overlap.\n*   **[00:20 - 00:21] Speaker A:** (no overlap here)\n*   **[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker B:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's end at 0:21 and Speaker B's start at 0:22. This is a very small, acceptable pause.\n*   **[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker B:** Overlaps Speaker A's turn (`[00:25 - 00:29]`) right at the end. Speaker A is cut off (\"who might\"). This is a brief overlap (effectively 0 seconds, as Speaker B starts as A finishes), where Speaker B smoothly takes the floor and pivots back to the main topic. This contributes to the dynamic and natural feel of the conversation.\n*   **[00:42 - 00:44] Speaker B:** Overlaps Speaker A's turn (`[00:35 - 00:43]`) by about 1 second. Speaker A is cut off (\"and get\"). Speaker B is expressing gratitude. This is another natural, brief overlap where a speaker interjects a quick response.\n\nNone of the overlaps are \"extended\" or \"prolonged,\" and they consistently last around 1 second or less. They do not disrupt comprehension or flow; instead, they add realism and dynamic interaction to the dialogue. There are no \"long pauses\" that impede the conversation's rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--320",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Your luggage is over 8 kilograms.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Really? What can I move to\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but if you want to avoid the excess luggage charge, do you have any items you can move to your carry-on?\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B: Oh, I see. I might be able to move some things. But after that, can I get a fragile label for my luggage?\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker A: Sure, I can give you the fragile label. But before that, let me check if your luggage is under the limit after you rearrange it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant, logically consistent, and maintain excellent topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's question \"Really? What can I move to\" directly addresses Speaker A's statement about overweight luggage.\n- Speaker A's follow-up \"Sorry to interrupt, but if you want to avoid the excess luggage charge, do you have any items you can move to your carry-on?\" offers a direct and logical solution to the problem, anticipating Speaker B's likely question.\n- Speaker B then acknowledges the solution and introduces a new, but related, request (\"can I get a fragile label?\"). This shows a natural progression of the check-in process.\n- Speaker A responds directly to the new request but logically prioritizes the unresolved weight issue (\"But before that, let me check if your luggage is under the limit\"). This demonstrates good problem-solving sequence and customer service logic.\nOverall, the dialogue flows very naturally from one point to the next, with each speaker's turn building logically on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with only one minor point to consider:\n- At [00:04], Speaker A explicitly states \"Sorry to interrupt,\" indicating an overlap or an early start to their turn, cutting off Speaker B's unfinished sentence \"What can I move to\". While this is an interruption, it is immediately acknowledged and serves the purpose of proactively offering a solution, which aids efficiency. It does not cause a breakdown in communication or confusion for Speaker B, who responds smoothly afterwards.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and natural (e.g., 00:11-00:12, 00:17-00:17).\nGiven that the interruption is brief, purposeful, and acknowledged, it does not constitute a \"significant issue\" that harms the overall interaction. The conversation feels natural and efficient.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--72581",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, boss. You wanted to see me?\n[00:02 - 00:10] Speaker B: Yes, Mollee. I have a new task for you. I need you to be able to lift heavy boxes, so I want you to apply this patch to your arm. It\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: Sorry, boss, just to clarify, is this patch safe? I've never used anything like this before.\n[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker B: Yes, it's safe. It will help increase your strength.\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker A: Okay, boss. I'll do it right away.\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: Good. I need you to be strong for this task. It's very important that you are able to lift the boxes without any problem.\n[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker A: I understand, boss. I'll make sure that I'm ready for the task and\n[00:32 - 00:38] Speaker B: Actually, before you start, make sure you follow the instructions carefully. It's crucial for the patch to work effectively.\n[00:39 - 00:42] Speaker A: Got it, boss. I'll be careful with the application.\n[00:43 - 00:45] Speaker B: Good. I'll be counting on you, Mollee.\n[00:45 - 00:48] Speaker A: You can count on me, boss. I won't let you down.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate high relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's initial query \"You wanted to see me?\" is directly met by Speaker B's explanation of a new task. Speaker A's subsequent question about the patch's safety is a highly relevant and logical follow-up to an unusual instruction. Speaker B directly addresses this concern, maintaining topic coherence. All subsequent turns build logically on the preceding statements, with instructions, acknowledgments, and reassurances flowing naturally. The conversation stays on the central topic of the new task, the strength-enhancing patch, and the importance of its application. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or illogical jumps in conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are two instances of brief overlap:\n1.  **[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A overlapping [00:02 - 00:10] Speaker B:** Speaker A starts at 00:09 while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence at 00:10. This is a very brief (1-second) overlap where Speaker A interjects to ask for clarification, which is a natural and common conversational behavior indicating active listening and engagement. It does not hinder communication.\n2.  **[00:32 - 00:38] Speaker B overlapping [00:28 - 00:33] Speaker A:** Speaker B starts at 00:32 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:33. This 1-second overlap is also natural, with Speaker B interrupting \"Actually, before you start...\" to add a crucial instruction, typical of a supervisor adding a detail.\nNeither of these overlaps is extended or prolonged; they are brief and serve specific interactional functions, making the conversation feel dynamic and real. There are no long pauses between turns, ensuring a smooth conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--21",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Frank. I heard you got a new job.\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: Yeah, Judy. I will be working for the Post Office. It's not a bad job.\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker A: Is it true that you have a heavy work schedule?\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: That's right. I am supposed to work at 5am every day, and I only get 45 minutes for lunch, which\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but starting at 5am every day sounds exhausting. How are you planning to manage that?\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker B: It will be tough, but I think I'll get used to it. I was saying that I only get 45 minutes for lunch.\n[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker A: Wow, that's not much time at all. So, why did you apply for such a demanding job?\n[00:34 - 00:38] Speaker B: Well, the government offers its employees excellent health insurance benefits.\n[00:38 - 00:43] Speaker A: Oh, I see. And can your family members utilize the health insurance, too?\n[00:43 - 00:47] Speaker B: Yeah, that's the best part. All of my children can get free medical care.\n[00:48 - 00:50] Speaker A: That's a great employment benefit!\n[00:50 - 00:53] Speaker B: Now you know why I wanted to work for the Post Office!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the information shared or asking clarifying questions directly related to the ongoing topic of Speaker B's new job.\n- Speaker A initiates the topic, and Speaker B responds directly by naming the job.\n- Speaker A's follow-up questions about the heavy work schedule are directly relevant to the nature of a new job.\n- Speaker B elaborates on the schedule details, which Speaker A comments on and questions further.\n- The brief interruption by Speaker A (at 00:15) is directly relevant to Speaker B's statement about the 5 am start, indicating active listening and engagement. Speaker B acknowledges the interruption and then seamlessly returns to their previous point before answering Speaker A's new question.\n- The progression from discussing the demanding schedule to the \"why\" behind taking such a job (benefits) is a very natural and coherent conversational flow.\n- Speaker A's questions about health insurance benefits and family coverage are direct follow-ups to Speaker B's explanation.\n- The concluding remarks from both speakers tie back to the initial topic and motivation.\nThere are no instances of off-topic remarks, irrelevant questions, or logical inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high.\n- **Pauses:** There are no indications of long pauses between speaker turns. The conversation flows smoothly from one speaker to the next, as indicated by the timestamps (e.g., Speaker B finishes at 00:07, Speaker A starts at 00:08; Speaker B finishes at 00:10, Speaker A starts at 00:11, etc.).\n- **Overlaps:** There is one instance of an overlap:\n    - Speaker B: \"...45 minutes for lunch, which\" [00:11 - 00:16]\n    - Speaker A: \"Sorry to cut in, but starting at 5am every day sounds exhausting. How are you planning to manage that?\" [00:15 - 00:22]\n    This is a brief overlap (Speaker A starts 1 second before Speaker B finishes). Crucially, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry to cut in\"), which makes it a polite and natural way to interject a thought or question immediately relevant to what the other speaker is saying. Speaker B manages this interruption well by first addressing Speaker A's comment/question and then returning to their original thought (\"I was saying that I only get 45 minutes for lunch.\"). This type of brief, acknowledged, and well-managed overlap is acceptable and contributes to the naturalness of the conversation rather than being \"prolonged\" or harmful. It demonstrates active listening and engagement.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--264",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi! What are you watching?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: It's a program about Islam. It's very informative and\n[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I'm curious—what's the program focusing on? Is it about the beliefs or more about the culture?\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: It's actually covering both, but right now, it's showing the pilgrimage to Mecca. Muslims call this pilgrimage 'haj'.\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker A: Wow! So many people! Where are they and what are they doing?\n[00:23 - 00:25] Speaker B: They are Muslims on a pilgrimage to Mecca.\n[00:26 - 00:27] Speaker A: Why do they go there?\n[00:28 - 00:38] Speaker B: Muslims believe that every man who is able should go on a haj at least once in his life. Mecca is the spiritual centre of the Muslim faith. When Muslims pray, they face towards Mecca.\n[00:39 - 00:46] Speaker A: That's right. Unfortunately, so many people go on the haj each year that there are often stamped and people get injured or\n[00:45 - 00:50] Speaker B: Oh, that reminds me—what exactly causes these accidents? Is it just the sheer number of people?\n[00:50 - 01:03] Speaker A: Yes, mainly. The pilgrims must walk around a large, sacred black stone. That's when accidents often happen. The Saudi government tries to limit the number of pilgrims, to reduce the chances of accidents.\n[01:04 - 01:07] Speaker B: I see. Pilgrimages are common in many faiths.\n[01:08 - 01:22] Speaker A: Yes. In England, Christian pilgrims might go to Canterbury and many Christians go to the Vatican on pilgrimages. By the way, I was mentioning earlier that people sometimes get killed during the haj due to the stampedes—it's a serious issue.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement, maintaining clear topic coherence throughout the conversation.\n- Speaker B's initial response (0:02-0:06) directly answers Speaker A's question about what they are watching.\n- Speaker A's follow-up (0:05-0:13) asks for clarification about the program's focus, which is directly relevant to Speaker B's previous mention.\n- Speaker B (0:13-0:19) provides a relevant and detailed answer.\n- Speaker A's questions (0:19-0:23, 0:26-0:27) are direct inquiries about the pilgrimage mentioned by Speaker B.\n- Speaker B's explanations (0:23-0:25, 0:28-0:38) are accurate and relevant answers to Speaker A's questions.\n- Speaker A introduces the issue of stampedes (0:39-0:46), which is a natural, albeit negative, development of the topic of the Haj.\n- Speaker B's question (0:45-0:50) directly probes the cause of the accidents mentioned by Speaker A.\n- Speaker A's detailed explanation (0:50-01:03) fully answers Speaker B's question.\n- Speaker B's general observation about pilgrimages (01:04-01:07) is a relevant thematic expansion.\n- Speaker A (01:08-01:22) acknowledges B's point, provides examples, and then effectively brings the conversation back to the serious issue of the Haj accidents, which demonstrates good conversational management and ensures important points aren't lost.\nOverall, the dialogue flows logically, and every response contributes meaningfully to the ongoing conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - Speaker A starts speaking at 0:05 while Speaker B is still speaking until 0:06 (1-second overlap). Speaker A explicitly says \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates natural conversational etiquette and acknowledges the overlap. This is a very common and acceptable form of overlap in fluent conversation, often showing eagerness to engage.\n    - Speaker B starts speaking at 0:45 while Speaker A is still speaking until 0:46 (1-second overlap). This is also a brief and acceptable overlap, indicating a natural flow and engagement between speakers.\n- There are several instances of short pauses between turns, typically 1 second:\n    - 0:25 - 0:26 (1 second)\n    - 0:27 - 0:28 (1 second)\n    - 0:38 - 0:39 (1 second)\n    - 1:03 - 1:04 (1 second)\n    - 1:07 - 1:08 (1 second)\nThese brief pauses are perfectly natural and do not hinder the flow of conversation. They provide a moment for processing or initiating a response without becoming prolonged or awkward. There are no long pauses or extended overlaps identified that would be considered harmful or indicative of poor fluency. The dialogue feels natural and dynamic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--54685",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I can't believe I missed that shot. I was so close.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: It happens. Don't beat yourself up about it.\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: But I had a perfect opportunity! If I had just pulled the trigger, I would have gotten that deer and\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker B: I get it, but dwelling on it won't help. What can we do differently next time?\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: I just can't shake the feeling that I'm never going to get another chance like that again. That was my one shot.\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker B: You never know. Maybe you'll get lucky and the deer will come back around again. Stranger things have happened in\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker A: I don't think so. I'm never going to be that lucky. I blew my one chance.\n[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker B: Just relax and take a deep breath. You're getting too worked up about it. It's not worth it.\n[00:37 - 00:41] Speaker A: This was my chance to prove myself as a hunter. And I blew it.\n[00:41 - 00:43] Speaker B: Nobody's perfect. We all make mistakes.\n[00:44 - 00:48] Speaker A: But this was a big mistake. I'll never forgive myself for this.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker A consistently expresses distress, regret, and self-blame over missing a shot, dwelling on the perceived failure and its implications for their self-image. Speaker B consistently responds by attempting to console, reassure, offer different perspectives, or shift the focus to more constructive thoughts. Even when Speaker A does not accept Speaker B's attempts at comfort (e.g., rejecting the idea of another chance or that it's just a mistake), their responses are direct, logical reactions to B's statements, reflecting A's persistent emotional state. The topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on the missed shot and the emotional aftermath. There are no instances of illogical responses, misunderstandings, or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural. There are a few very brief overlaps (e.g., [00:11 - 00:12] and [00:27 - 00:27]), which are less than 1 second or exactly 1 second in duration. These are typical in natural conversation, especially when one speaker (B) is trying to interject with comfort or advice while the other (A) is deeply emotional. They are not extended or prolonged and do not disrupt the flow. Similarly, the pauses between turns (e.g., [00:15 - 00:16], [00:31 - 00:32], [00:43 - 00:44]) are consistently brief, around 1 second. These are \"small pauses\" that are acceptable and contribute to the natural rhythm of a conversational exchange, allowing for processing or emphasis, rather than indicating awkwardness or breakdown.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--9014",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much, just hanging out. What about you?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm just feeling a little down today.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: That's understandable. Is there anything in particular that's bothering you?\n[00:10 - 00:20] Speaker A: I don't know, it just feels like everything is going wrong lately. My job is stressing me out, my relationship isn't going great... it's like\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker B: Wait, when you say your job is stressing you out, is it because of a specific project or just the overall workload?\n[00:26 - 00:33] Speaker A: It's mostly the workload, but also some conflicts with my boss. And about my relationship... I feel\n[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker B: Conflicts with your boss can be really draining. Have you thought about how to address those issues with them?\n[00:38 - 00:44] Speaker A: I have, but it's tricky. As for my relationship, I think I need to have a serious talk with my partner.\n[00:44 - 00:48] Speaker B: That sounds like a good idea. Communication is key in both work and relationships.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue exhibit excellent logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B consistently picks up on the points raised by Speaker A, demonstrating active listening and relevant follow-up questions. For instance, when Speaker A mentions job stress and relationship issues, Speaker B zeroes in on the job stress for clarification, and then later acknowledges the relationship issue. Speaker A's responses directly address Speaker B's questions and attempts to elaborate on their feelings. The conversation stays focused on Speaker A's emotional state and the causes, with a natural progression from identifying the problems to discussing potential ways to address them. There are no irrelevant turns or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses between turns; the conversation flows smoothly with natural timing. Two brief overlaps were identified:\n- At [00:19 - 00:20], Speaker B interjects briefly while Speaker A is mid-sentence, asking for clarification about the job stress. This is a natural, non-disruptive interjection.\n- At [00:32 - 00:33], Speaker B briefly overlaps again as Speaker A is attempting to transition to the relationship topic, instead focusing on the just-mentioned \"conflicts with boss.\" This is also a brief, non-prolonged overlap that falls within the acceptable range as defined in the criteria (\"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\").\nThese overlaps are short (approximately 1 second each) and do not impede understanding or disrupt the flow significantly. They feel like natural, eager participation rather than prolonged turn-taking issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--454",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: All right. I want to bring everybody back on this subject. When can we start working on this?\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker B: Well, we could probably get started with a preparatory meeting this afternoon at 2:00.\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A: I tell you what, 2:00 is not available for me, but you can get started and I'll come by at around 3:00 to\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: Sorry, but before we settle on that, do we have all the necessary materials ready for the meeting?\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker A: Good point. We do have most of the materials, but I was going to say I'll come by at around 3:00.\n[00:29 - 00:32] Speaker B: That's fine with me. How much time are we going to have to work on this?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial suggestion of a preparatory meeting at 2:00 is a direct and logical response to Speaker A's question about when to start. Speaker A then logically counters with their unavailability and proposes an alternative (coming at 3:00). Speaker B's interjection regarding \"necessary materials\" is highly relevant, as it addresses a crucial prerequisite for the proposed meeting, demonstrating foresight and practical thinking. Speaker A acknowledges this point (\"Good point\") and addresses it while attempting to return to their original proposal. Finally, Speaker B accepts A's adjusted time and introduces another relevant logistical question about the duration of the work. The conversation flows logically, with each turn building upon or directly addressing the previous one, maintaining a clear focus on planning the start of the work.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There is one brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B: Speaker B begins speaking at [00:17] while Speaker A is still speaking, who finishes their turn at [00:18]. This results in a 1-second overlap. According to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This particular overlap is brief and serves a communicative purpose, as Speaker B interjects with a critical, time-sensitive question (\"before we settle on that\"). It does not appear to be a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlapping turn that significantly disrupts the conversation flow. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The conversation maintains a natural and appropriate pace.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--49335",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm really glad you brought that up! I've been meaning to learn more about environmentalism and how\n[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker B: Yeah, me too. I feel like it's something we should all be more aware of. Do you have any specific topics in mind that you're particularly interested in?\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: Absolutely. Do you have any idea where we should start?\n[00:17 - 00:25] Speaker B: Well, I know there are a lot of different ways to help the environment. We could start by learning about some of the most pressing issues and what we can do to reduce our\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but do you think we should focus on local issues first, like how our community can get involved?\n[00:32 - 00:39] Speaker B: That's a good point. Local issues might be more actionable for us. We can start there and then branch out to broader topics.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speakers consistently stay on topic, building logically on each other's contributions. Speaker A introduces environmentalism, Speaker B responds with shared interest and asks for specific topics. Speaker A then seeks guidance on where to start, and Speaker B offers a general approach. Speaker A then refines the approach by suggesting a focus on local issues, which Speaker B agrees with and elaborates on. The conversation flows naturally, with each turn demonstrating an understanding of the previous one and contributing meaningfully to the discussion's progression. There are no instances of irrelevant responses, topic drift, or logical inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are a couple of brief overlaps (0:04-0:05, 0:24-0:25), but these are short and natural, typical of engaged conversation where speakers anticipate each other or briefly interrupt to add a thought, as acknowledged by Speaker A (\"Sorry to cut in\"). These are not \"extended overlaps\" that would hinder understanding or signal conversational breakdown. The pauses between turns are also very short (e.g., 0:12-0:13, 0:31-0:32), indicating a smooth and continuous flow without any \"long pauses\" that would suggest hesitation or difficulty in maintaining the conversation. Overall, the pacing and turn-taking feel very natural and fluid.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--74637",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Dad, I did some research and found out that our ancestors were from Ireland.\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Yes, that's right. Our family came over from Ireland in the late 1800s.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: I had no idea. What made them come to America?\n[00:13 - 00:22] Speaker B: Well, back then life was very difficult in Ireland. There was a lot of poverty and political unrest. Many people decided to leave in search of a better life and\n[00:21 - 00:29] Speaker A: Speaking of a better life, do you think their decision to leave was more about economic opportunity or escaping the political turmoil?\n[00:30 - 00:42] Speaker B: It was probably a mix of both. Economic opportunity was a big factor, but the political situation was also very unstable. I was going to say that they were also driven by the hope of providing a better future for their children.\n[00:42 - 00:44] Speaker A: Do you know anything about their lives in Ireland?\n[00:45 - 00:52] Speaker B: Not much, I'm afraid. But I do know that they were farmers. They probably had a hard life, but they were probably very proud of their heritage.\n[00:52 - 00:57] Speaker A: I'd love to learn more about our Irish roots. Do you think we could visit some of\n[00:56 - 01:01] Speaker B: Ireland someday? Absolutely. In fact, your grandparents have always wanted to take a trip back there.\n[01:01 - 01:07] Speaker A: That sounds like a great idea. I'm sure your grandparents would be thrilled to show you around.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B confirms Speaker A's finding, Speaker A then asks a follow-up question, Speaker B provides context, and Speaker A further refines the question. Speaker B's response at 0:30 is a direct answer and also smoothly integrates the point they were interrupted from making, demonstrating strong logical flow. The shift to asking about \"lives in Ireland\" at 0:42 is a natural progression of the topic. The concluding turns about visiting Ireland are a logical next step from learning about ancestors.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The entire conversation remains focused on the family's Irish ancestry, reasons for migration, and the desire to learn more/visit. Speaker A's slight interjection at 0:21, \"Speaking of a better life,\" is a highly coherent way to pivot the conversation while still directly addressing the underlying theme Speaker B was discussing. Speaker B's ability to complete Speaker A's thought at 0:56 further underscores high topic coherence and engagement.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, indicating a natural and engaging conversation.\n1.  **Extended overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps identified.\n    *   [00:21 - 00:29] Speaker A starts speaking at 0:21 while Speaker B finishes their sentence at 0:22. This is a 1-second overlap. While it's an interruption, it's very brief and Speaker A immediately connects their thought to Speaker B's preceding words (\"Speaking of a better life\"). Speaker B manages this well by later reiterating their original point.\n    *   [00:56 - 01:01] Speaker B starts speaking at 0:56 while Speaker A finishes their sentence at 0:57. This is also a 1-second overlap, but crucially, Speaker B *completes* Speaker A's sentence (\"Ireland someday?\"). This type of collaborative completion is a strong indicator of high engagement and natural conversational rhythm, rather than a harmful overlap.\nBoth overlaps are brief (1 second) and do not appear \"prolonged\" or \"harmful.\" They contribute to the natural, lively feel of the conversation rather than disrupting it.\n2.  **Long pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and seamless, reflecting a highly fluent interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--74286",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm so stressed out. I can't sleep at night because I keep worrying about how I'm going to pay off my credit card\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but how much debt are we talking about here? It's important to know the exact amount so we can figure out the best approach.\n[00:13 - 00:14] Speaker A: $20,000.\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker B: Wow, that's a lot of money. Have you made any progress on paying it off?\n[00:19 - 00:30] Speaker A: Not really. I've been making the minimum payments, but it's not doing much to reduce the balance. The interest is just piling up, and I feel like I'm never going to get out from under this debt.\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker B: Have you thought about consolidating your loans or looking into a debt relief plan?\n[00:35 - 00:44] Speaker A: Yeah, I've looked into those options, but they all seem like scams. I don't want to end up in even more debt than I already have. It\n[00:43 - 00:53] Speaker B: I totally get that fear. But there are some legitimate programs that could really help. Maybe talking to a financial advisor or exploring credit counseling services could give you some peace of mind.\n[00:54 - 00:58] Speaker A: Yeah, maybe that's something I should do. Thanks for the advice, Sarah.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker B's response:** Speaker B immediately jumps into a relevant clarification question (\"how much debt are we talking about here?\") after Speaker A expresses distress about credit card debt. This is a logical next step to understand the scope of the problem.\n2.  **[00:13 - 00:14] Speaker A's response:** Speaker A directly answers Speaker B's question with the specific amount, maintaining coherence.\n3.  **[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker B's response:** Speaker B acknowledges the severity (\"Wow, that's a lot of money\") and asks a follow-up question (\"Have you made any progress?\"), which is directly related to the problem of debt.\n4.  **[00:19 - 00:30] Speaker A's response:** Speaker A elaborates on their situation, explaining why minimum payments aren't helping, which directly answers Speaker B's question and provides more context for their distress.\n5.  **[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker B's response:** Speaker B offers potential solutions (\"consolidating your loans or looking into a debt relief plan?\") based on Speaker A's description of the problem.\n6.  **[00:35 - 00:44] Speaker A's response:** Speaker A addresses B's suggestions directly, explaining their apprehension due to fear of scams, which is a common and understandable concern.\n7.  **[00:43 - 00:53] Speaker B's response:** Speaker B validates Speaker A's fear (\"I totally get that fear\") and then reframes the suggestions, offering more trusted avenues like financial advisors or credit counseling, showing active listening and empathetic problem-solving.\n8.  **[00:54 - 00:58] Speaker A's response:** Speaker A expresses willingness to consider the advice and gratitude, providing a natural closing to the interaction.\nOverall, the topic coherence is excellent. Each turn logically builds upon the previous one, and the conversation stays focused on the issue of debt and potential solutions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural and appropriate.\n1.  **Overlap [00:05 - 00:06]:** Speaker B overlaps Speaker A by 1 second. Speaker B explicitly states \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which acknowledges the brief overlap and makes it acceptable and natural, demonstrating politeness in a conversational turn-taking. This is not a prolonged or harmful overlap.\n2.  **Overlap [00:43 - 00:44]:** Speaker B overlaps Speaker A by 1 second. Speaker A's sentence ends with \"It...\" which sounds like they might be trailing off or hesitating. Speaker B jumps in immediately with an empathetic statement (\"I totally get that fear\"). This is a very common and natural conversational dynamic, especially when one speaker is expressing distress and the other wants to offer immediate reassurance or take the floor. It is brief and does not disrupt the flow negatively.\n3.  **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The turns generally follow each other promptly, indicating a smooth and engaging conversation.\nBoth brief overlaps and the absence of prolonged pauses contribute to a highly natural and fluent interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--361",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Here's your hot dog and beer. What happened? Did I miss anything?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Yeah, Cal Ripen just hit a home run,\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: Wait, Ripen? Seriously? What's the score now?\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B: Well, it was 3 to 4, but Ripen's home run made it 5 to 4 since another player was on first base.\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker A: So Baltimore is winning?\n[00:19 - 00:20] Speaker B: Right.\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker A: This is a really great place to watch a baseball game.\n[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker B: Yeah, there isn't a bad seat in the place.\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker A: The fans are great here, too. Not like in Philadelphia. By the way, you were saying Ripen hit a home run?\n[00:34 - 00:39] Speaker B: Oh, yeah, it was a great hit. It was a great idea to spend a day watching a game.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B consistently answers Speaker A's questions about the baseball game and the score. The conversation flows naturally from the game details (home run, score) to observations about the venue (great place to watch, no bad seats, fans). Speaker A's \"By the way, you were saying Ripen hit a home run?\" at [00:27 - 00:33] shows a slight digression before returning to an earlier point of interest, which is a common and coherent interactional move in natural conversation, not a loss of topic. All responses directly address the previous turn's content or naturally expand on the current topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high. There is one brief overlap at [00:06 - 00:10] where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is finishing their sentence. This is a very short overlap (approximately 1 second) and is typical of enthusiastic or engaged conversation, not indicative of a disruption. There are no extended overlaps. Similarly, the pauses between turns (e.g., [00:23] to [00:24], [00:26] to [00:27], [00:33] to [00:34]) are all very brief (approximately 1 second each), allowing for natural turn-taking without awkward silence or hesitation. These small pauses are well within the acceptable range for natural dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--589",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi, how are you doing?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm doing great - it's been so nice outside today!\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker A: What have you been up to this weekend?\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B: I've been really busy. I had to fix the sprinklers in the garden, so I was outside for\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A: Oh, did you manage to fix them? I've been having issues with mine as well.\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker B: Yes, I did manage to fix them. But I was outside for a while today, and it made me realize how much I enjoy gardening.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial response (\"I'm doing great - it's been so nice outside today!\") directly answers Speaker A's greeting and provides a natural lead-in to further conversation about activities.\n- Speaker A's follow-up question (\"What have you been up to this weekend?\") is a logical progression.\n- Speaker B's explanation about fixing sprinklers is a direct and relevant answer to the weekend activity question.\n- Speaker A's interjection (\"Oh, did you manage to fix them? I've been having issues with mine as well.\") shows active listening and directly relates to the previous topic, while also adding a personal connection.\n- Speaker B's final response (\"Yes, I did manage to fix them. But I was outside for a while today, and it made me realize how much I enjoy gardening.\") answers the question and naturally expands on the theme of being outside, linking back to their earlier comment about the weather.\nThe conversation flows very smoothly with each turn building upon the previous one in a relevant and meaningful way.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the conversation progresses naturally with appropriate pacing (e.g., 1-second gaps between turns like 00:01-00:02, 00:05-00:06).\n- There is a brief overlap between [00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B's turn and [00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A's turn. Speaker A begins speaking one second before Speaker B finishes. This is a very short, natural overlap (1 second duration) that often occurs in fluent, engaging conversations where one speaker anticipates the end of the other's thought or interjects with an immediate follow-up question. It is not an \"extended overlap\" and does not hinder understanding or conversation flow. This type of brief overlap is explicitly stated as acceptable in the scoring criteria.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--211",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: You mustn't touch the wet paint, Bill.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm sorry. I won't do it again.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: Try to be more careful in the future,\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: Speaking of being careful, did you notice that John Sampson walked across that wet cement over there?\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker A: I did, actually. I wasn't as careless as him. The workmen oughtn't to leave it without a notice.\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker B: The headmaster asked them not to do so.\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker A: Then why isn't there a notice?\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker B: Oh, they went to their stores to get one. Here they come with it now!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong **Response Relevance**. Each turn logically follows from the previous one, creating a coherent and easy-to-follow conversation.\n1.  **[00:00-00:04]** Speaker B's apology is a direct and appropriate response to Speaker A's warning about the wet paint.\n2.  **[00:04-00:06]** Speaker A's follow-up instruction reinforces the initial warning and flows naturally from B's apology.\n3.  **[00:06-00:11]** Speaker B introduces a new, but related, topic (wet cement) using the explicit transition phrase \"Speaking of being careful,\" which directly links it to the previous discussion about caution. This demonstrates good topic coherence and smooth topic management.\n4.  **[00:11-00:17]** Speaker A directly answers B's question and logically extends the point by commenting on the workmen's responsibility, keeping the conversation tied to the theme of avoiding wet substances and carelessness.\n5.  **[00:18-00:20]** Speaker B's statement clarifies the situation regarding the workmen, directly addressing A's comment about the lack of a notice.\n6.  **[00:20-00:22]** Speaker A's question is a logical follow-up based on B's clarification.\n7.  **[00:22-00:25]** Speaker B provides a clear and concise answer that resolves the immediate query and brings the sub-topic to a satisfying close.\nThere are no instances of logical inconsistency or abrupt topic shifts. The dialogue maintains a clear narrative thread throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe **Interactional Fluency** of the dialogue is excellent.\n1.  **Extended overlaps:** There are no extended overlaps indicated by the timestamps. Each speaker waits for the previous speaker's turn to conclude before starting their own.\n2.  **Long pauses:** There is only one brief pause of 1 second between [00:17] and [00:18]. This is a very natural and acceptable pause, not a prolonged or awkward silence. All other transitions between turns are immediate (0-second gaps, e.g., [00:02-00:02], [00:04-00:04], etc.), indicating a smooth and natural conversational flow. The rapid-fire exchange suggests engaged participants and a high degree of conversational responsiveness.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--100282",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Oh no, are you okay?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm fine. Thanks for catching me\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker A: Sorry, but are you sure? You took a pretty hard fall.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: I'm sure, really. Thanks for your help.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance.\n*   Speaker A's initial question, \"Oh no, are you okay?\", is a direct and logical response to an implied incident (someone falling or being in distress).\n*   Speaker B's immediate reply, \"Yeah, I'm fine. Thanks for catching me\", directly answers the question about well-being and provides context for gratitude, implying Speaker A's helpful action.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up, \"Sorry, but are you sure? You took a pretty hard fall,\" shows consistent concern, questions B's assessment given the severity of the incident, and provides logical justification for the continued questioning (\"pretty hard fall\").\n*   Speaker B's final response, \"I'm sure, really. Thanks for your help,\" reiterates their well-being with added assurance and expresses gratitude again, closing the conversational loop.\nAll turns are logically consistent and maintain a clear topic coherence regarding Speaker B's well-being after an incident.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits excellent interactional fluency.\n*   **Overlaps**: There is a brief overlap of 1 second (from 00:03 to 00:04) where Speaker A begins their turn while Speaker B is finishing \"Thanks for catching me.\" This is a natural and brief overlap, indicating responsive turn-taking rather than disruptive interruption. The prompt states that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this fits that description.\n*   **Pauses**: There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns.\n    *   The pause between [00:01] Speaker A's question and [00:02] Speaker B's response is 1 second, which is natural.\n    *   Speaker A's next turn starts at [00:03], overlapping slightly with B, and Speaker B's final turn at [00:07] starts immediately after Speaker A finishes.\nThe conversation flows smoothly and naturally without any noticeable disruptions from prolonged pauses or extended overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--25776",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I wanted to live in France because I was interested in the country and its culture. It seemed like a great place to immerse myself\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Why France? What about all the other countries in the world?\n[00:09 - 00:21] Speaker A: I don't know. There's just something about France that caught my interest. Maybe it's the history, or the food, or the language. I just thought it would be a really cool place to explore and\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: And you were right! It is a really cool place to live. I'm so jealous that you get to experience it firsthand.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A introduces their desire to live in France and provides an initial reason (interest in culture, immersion). Speaker B's follow-up question \"Why France? What about all the other countries in the world?\" is a direct and logical response, seeking further clarification and probing the decision. Speaker A then elaborates on their initial thought, acknowledging uncertainty (\"I don't know\") but then providing specific potential reasons (history, food, language), directly addressing B's query. Finally, Speaker B's concluding remark \"And you were right! It is a really cool place to live. I'm so jealous that you get to experience it firsthand.\" shows affirmation and personal connection, relevant to A's sentiment of France being a \"cool place to explore.\" The topic remains consistently focused on France and the reasons for choosing/liking it throughout the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses.\n- The overlap between Speaker A [00:00 - 00:07] and Speaker B [00:06 - 00:09] is brief (1 second). Speaker B starts speaking just as Speaker A is finishing, which is a very natural and common occurrence in fluent conversation, indicating active listening and turn-taking without interruption. This falls under the \"brief overlaps\" that are acceptable.\n- The transition from Speaker B [00:06 - 00:09] to Speaker A [00:09 - 00:21] is immediate, with no pause.\n- The transition from Speaker A [00:09 - 00:21] to Speaker B [00:21 - 00:27] is also immediate, with no pause.\nThe rapid, seamless turn-taking throughout the dialogue contributes to a very natural and fluid conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--83748",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hello, how are you today?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm doing well, thank you. How about you?\n[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker A: I'm doing well too. I've been keeping up with the news and it seems like there's a lot happening in the world right now, especially\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker B: Speaking of the news, did you hear about the recent climate summit? It seems like it's going to have a significant impact on global policies.\n[00:19 - 00:31] Speaker A: Yes, I did hear about that. It's definitely one of the major events happening right now. But as I was saying earlier, it can be overwhelming trying to keep up with everything that's going on.\n[00:32 - 00:41] Speaker B: Absolutely. I think it's important to stay informed, but it's also important to take breaks from the news and focus on other things too. Otherwise, it can be very draining and\n[00:40 - 00:47] Speaker A: Overwhelming, yes. I was just thinking the same. Do you have any strategies you use to take those breaks?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the established topic of current events and their impact.\n*   Speaker B's initial response `I'm doing well, thank you. How about you?` is a standard and relevant reply to a greeting.\n*   Speaker A's introduction of the news as a topic `I've been keeping up with the news and it seems like there's a lot happening in the world right now, especially` is coherent.\n*   Speaker B's follow-up `Speaking of the news, did you hear about the recent climate summit?` directly picks up on Speaker A's topic, narrowing it to a specific relevant event.\n*   Speaker A acknowledges Speaker B's point (`Yes, I did hear about that.`) and then seamlessly transitions back to their earlier general point about the overwhelming nature of news, showing good recall and topic management (`But as I was saying earlier, it can be overwhelming trying to keep up with everything that's going on.`).\n*   Speaker B's agreement and elaboration (`Absolutely. I think it's important to stay informed, but it's also important to take breaks from the news...`) directly addresses Speaker A's sentiment about news being overwhelming.\n*   Speaker A's final interjection `Overwhelming, yes. I was just thinking the same. Do you have any strategies you use to take those breaks?` completes Speaker B's thought and asks a direct, relevant follow-up question, indicating strong engagement and topic progression.\nThere are no instances of topic drift or illogical responses. The conversation maintains a clear and consistent flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high.\n*   **Pauses:** There are brief pauses (1 second) between Speaker A's first turn and Speaker B's, and again between Speaker A's third turn and Speaker B's fourth turn. These are natural and acceptable pauses for turn-taking in a conversation, not prolonged or awkward silences.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps detected:\n    *   `[00:11 - 00:12]` where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. Speaker A was saying \"...especially\" and Speaker B interjects with \"Speaking of the news...\". This is a very common and natural type of overlap, often indicating eagerness to contribute or a recognition of a topic cue, and it doesn't disrupt the flow. Speaker A's subsequent turn shows they heard and processed Speaker B's interjection.\n    *   `[00:40 - 00:41]` where Speaker A interjects with \"Overwhelming, yes.\" while Speaker B is still speaking \"...very draining and\". This is a clear example of a cooperative overlap, where Speaker A completes Speaker B's thought, showing strong understanding and engagement. This type of overlap enhances fluency and rapport, rather than being disruptive.\nNeither the pauses nor the overlaps are prolonged or harmful. They reflect natural, engaged conversational dynamics.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--164",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Are you enjoying your trip to New Orleans?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Oh, yes. I really like it the vibrant\n[00:03 - 00:11] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I was wondering if you've had a chance to try the local cuisine yet? There are some amazing restaurants here.\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: Yes, the food has been incredible! But you were saying you really like it here—what's been your favorite part so far?\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker A: I love the music and the atmosphere. Would you like to do something tonight?\n[00:22 - 00:23] Speaker B: Sure. I'd love to.\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker A: Let's see. Have you been to a jazz club yet?\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker B: Yes. I've already been to several clubs here.\n[00:30 - 00:33] Speaker A: OK. What about an evening riverboat tour?\n[00:34 - 00:36] Speaker B: Uh, actually, I've gone twice this week.\n[00:37 - 00:38] Speaker A: So, what do you want to do?\n[00:39 - 00:42] Speaker B: Well, I haven't been to the theater in a long time.\n[00:42 - 00:47] Speaker A: Oh, OK. I hear there's a terrific show at the Sanger Theater.\n[00:48 - 00:50] Speaker B: Great! Let's make a reservation.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker A's initial question is directly answered by Speaker B. Speaker A then introduces a new topic (local cuisine) but explicitly acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption, demonstrating good conversational awareness. Speaker B not only answers the new question but also cleverly brings the conversation back to Speaker A's initial, interrupted statement (\"But you were saying you really like it here—what's been your favorite part so far?\"), showing excellent memory and topic coherence. Subsequent turns maintain logical consistency; when Speaker A's suggestions for activities are rejected, Speaker A appropriately asks Speaker B for their preference, and Speaker B's suggestion is met with a relevant and helpful response from Speaker A. The conversation flows naturally and logically from one point to the next, with each turn building coherently on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is one brief overlap at the beginning (Speaker A starts at 00:03 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:05). This is a 2-second overlap, which is not prolonged, and crucially, Speaker A immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which makes the overlap feel natural and managed rather than disruptive. All other transitions between speakers are either immediate or involve very brief pauses (1 second), which are typical and natural in conversation and do not impede the flow. There are no long, awkward silences or extended, disruptive overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--298",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Have you ever done this kind of work before?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: No, I haven't. But I'm sure I'll be good at it.\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: Well as you know if you take it, you'll have to work weekends.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: Oh, that's something I\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but I just remembered—how do you feel about potentially working late nights as well?\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: Late nights? I wasn't aware of that. But I think I can manage it. Oh, and weekends are alright too.\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker A: Do you like traveling and meeting people?\n[00:25 - 00:28] Speaker B: Oh yes. In fact that's why this job really interests me.\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker A: And can you speak any foreign languages?\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker B: Yes, I can speak German and French quite well and I've been studying Japanese on\n[00:34 - 00:41] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I'm curious—how comfortable are you with using these languages in a professional setting?\n[00:42 - 00:50] Speaker B: I feel quite comfortable, actually. I've had some practice during my travels. By the way, I was going to mention that I've been studying Japanese for about a year.\n[00:50 - 00:55] Speaker A: Oh, that's good, and you have a nice clear voice. Are you good at public speaking?\n[00:56 - 01:00] Speaker B: Well, I haven't done much. But I used to love speaking in front of the class when I was at College.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct and logical answers to Speaker A's questions. For example, Speaker B directly addresses the requirements of working weekends and late nights, and then the questions about traveling, languages, and public speaking. Speaker A's questions are also logically consistent within the context of a job interview, probing for relevant skills and availability. Even when Speaker A interrupts, the follow-up questions are coherent and directly related to the topic at hand (e.g., asking about comfort with languages in a professional setting after Speaker B mentions speaking languages). There are no logical inconsistencies or abrupt topic shifts that are not managed appropriately (e.g., Speaker A's apologies for interruptions, Speaker B's integration of prior points).\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally very good.\nThere are two instances of slight overlap where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing:\n1.  At [00:10 - 00:16], Speaker A starts speaking at 00:10 while Speaker B's turn ends at 00:11. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to cut in\"), which makes the overlap feel polite and managed, rather than a harmful interruption.\n2.  At [00:34 - 00:41], Speaker A starts speaking at 00:34 while Speaker B's turn ends at 00:35. This is also a 1-second overlap. Again, Speaker A apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating awareness and politeness.\n\nThese overlaps are brief (1 second each) and explicitly acknowledged/apologized for by Speaker A, which mitigates their impact and makes them acceptable within natural conversation. They are not \"extended overlaps\" or \"prolonged overlapping turns\" as described in the harmful category.\n\nRegarding pauses, there are small pauses (1 second) between some turns (e.g., 00:24-00:25, 00:41-00:42, 00:55-00:56). These are brief and natural, falling within the acceptable range for conversational rhythm and turn-taking. There are no long or prolonged pauses detected.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--318",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:09] Speaker A: Hi. I'm here for flight 513 to New York but I thought I heard the paging system announce that it is canceled. Is that true? I\n[00:08 - 00:16] Speaker B: I'm terribly sorry to interrupt, sir, but I can confirm that the flight has indeed been canceled. Would you like to try to book tomorrow's flight?\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: No way! I worked very hard so that I could leave on today's flight. Are there seats on another airline?\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker B: It's possible. If you would like to book with another airline the line is right over there.\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker A: You mean the line over there of about 200 people? That's going\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker B: That's the one. It seems that everyone is anxious to get to New York tonight.\n[00:36 - 00:42] Speaker A: This is a rotten way to start a vacation. I HATE lines! Can you book me on tomorrow's flight?\n[00:42 - 00:56] Speaker B: Certainly. You will also be receiving a 50% discount as our way of apologizing for the inconvenience. By the way, did you want me to check if there might be any other options available tonight, or should I go ahead with booking tomorrow's flight?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct and appropriate answers to Speaker A's questions and concerns, confirming information (flight cancellation), offering solutions (booking tomorrow's flight, directing to other airlines), and acknowledging Speaker A's frustrations. Speaker A's turns logically follow Speaker B's responses, demonstrating understanding and adapting their requests based on the information provided (e.g., initially asking about other airlines, then deciding to book tomorrow's flight). The conversation stays on topic, revolving around the canceled flight and finding an alternative. There are no instances of irrelevant information, illogical leaps, or off-topic discussions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two brief overlaps identified in the transcript ([00:08 - 00:09] and [00:31 - 00:32]), both lasting only one second. The first overlap at [00:08 - 00:09] is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"I'm terribly sorry to interrupt, sir\"), indicating a polite and natural interruption rather than a problematic extended overlap. The second overlap at [00:31 - 00:32] occurs as Speaker A's sentence trails off (\"That's going\"), and Speaker B naturally cuts in to confirm, which is also a common and acceptable dynamic in natural conversation. There are no long pauses between turns; the longest pause identified is 1 second ([00:22 - 00:23]), which is well within acceptable limits for natural conversation. The dialogue flows smoothly without any significant disruptions in turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--338",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, may I get you anything to drink?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Yes, please. May I get a glass of lemonade?\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: Would you like an appetizer?\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: May I get an order of barbeque wings?\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: Sure, would you like anything else?\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker B: That'll be fine for now, thank you.\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker A: Okay, tell me when you want to order the rest of your [interrupt]\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker B: Actually, I'm ready to order the rest now.\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker A: Oh, of course! What would you like?\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker B: Let me have the baby-back ribs.\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker A: Sure, will there be anything else that I can get you?\n[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker B: That will be it for now. By the way, you were about to say something earlier about ordering the rest of the food?\n[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker A: I was just going to say, let me know if you need anything else later.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one.\n- Speaker B's requests (lemonade, wings) are direct responses to Speaker A's offers (drinks, appetizers).\n- Speaker B's \"That'll be fine for now\" is a relevant response to Speaker A's \"anything else?\".\n- The key moment is the interruption at [00:17]. Speaker B's \"Actually, I'm ready to order the rest now\" is highly relevant, as it directly anticipates and completes Speaker A's unfinished thought (\"order the rest of your\"). This shows active listening and proactivity, maintaining the topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's follow-up question at [00:28] (\"By the way, you were about to say something earlier...\") demonstrates excellent recall and a desire for clarification, ensuring the conversation loop is closed. Speaker A's response at [00:33] then provides that clarification, completing the interaction.\nOverall, the conversation flows naturally and logically, with all responses being highly coherent and relevant to the ongoing topic of ordering food.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses noted (e.g., 1 second between [00:02] and [00:03], and [00:19] and [00:20]) are brief and natural, allowing for processing and turn-taking without feeling awkward or prolonged.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap detected at [00:17 - 00:19] where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing. Speaker A speaks until 00:18, and Speaker B starts at 00:17, resulting in a 1-second overlap. This is a brief and functional overlap (a \"cooperative\" or \"anticipatory\" interruption). Speaker B interrupts to state they are ready to order what Speaker A was just about to ask about. This type of overlap is not disruptive or harmful; rather, it often contributes to the naturalness and efficiency of conversational flow, especially in a service context. It does not qualify as an \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--225",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Mr. Simpson, if you are free, how about a lunch?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: When do you have in [interrupt]\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, I was thinking Thursday might be a good day. Does that work for you?\n[00:09 - 00:10] Speaker B: That will be fine with me.\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker A: I know of a place you'll like and you have got to try their\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: Oh, great! But just to confirm, what time should I be there?\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker A: 12:30. I was just about to say you have got to be there—it's a fantastic spot.\n[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker B: Good, I'll be there at 12:30.\n[00:27 - 00:28] Speaker A: OK, see you then.\n[00:29 - 00:29] Speaker B: See you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance throughout the dialogue is excellent.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** Each turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker A proposes lunch, Speaker B starts to ask about availability, Speaker A proactively provides a suggestion. Speaker B accepts, Speaker A elaborates, Speaker B seeks clarification on time, Speaker A provides it and continues. The conversation concludes naturally.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The entire dialogue stays focused on the single topic of scheduling a lunch meeting. There are no irrelevant tangents or abrupt topic shifts.\n3.  **No Misunderstandings:** Both speakers clearly understand each other's intentions and questions. Speaker A anticipates Speaker B's need for a day, and Speaker B's question about time is directly answered.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, demonstrating natural conversational dynamics.\n1.  **Overlaps:** There are two instances of brief overlaps.\n    *   At [00:03], Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. However, Speaker A immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to jump in\") and provides the information Speaker B was likely about to ask for, which makes the interruption functional and polite, not harmful. The overlap is very brief (1 second).\n    *   At [00:13], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A to ask a crucial clarifying question (\"what time should I be there?\"). This is a brief, task-oriented interruption (1 second overlap) that efficiently moves the conversation forward to confirm necessary details. Speaker A handles it smoothly by answering and then resuming their previous thought.\n    Both overlaps are brief and serve a clear communicative purpose, indicating an efficient and dynamic exchange rather than a breakdown in turn-taking.\n2.  **Pauses:** All pauses between turns are very short (typically 1 second) and fall within the range of natural conversational rhythm. There are no prolonged pauses that would indicate hesitation, disengagement, or difficulty in turn-taking.\nThe conversation flows smoothly and naturally, resembling a real-life interaction where brief overlaps and short pauses are common and acceptable.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--10377",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Mom. I wanted to talk to you about something.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: What is it, Ezriel?\n[00:05 - 00:15] Speaker A: I know I've been kind of impulsive and careless lately, and I just wanted to let you know that I'm trying to be more responsible. I'm thinking before making decisions\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: Wait, does this have anything to do with what happened last week when you lost your phone?\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A: Actually, yes, that was a wake-up call for me. I'm being more careful with my belongings now.\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker B: That's great, Ezriel! I'm really proud of you for making that effort.\n[00:29 - 00:33] Speaker A: Thanks, Mom. It's just been something I've been wanting to work on\n[00:32 - 00:35] Speaker B: And how are you planning to keep this up? Do you have a strategy in mind?\n[00:36 - 00:43] Speaker A: I'm taking things one step at a time, like setting reminders and being more mindful. Well, keep up the good work!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong **response relevance** and **topic coherence** throughout. Speaker A initiates a conversation about personal growth and responsibility, and Speaker B consistently responds by engaging with the topic, asking clarifying questions, offering praise, and inquiring about strategies. Each turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining a clear and coherent conversation flow. For example, Speaker B's question about the lost phone directly relates to Speaker A's admission of impulsiveness, and Speaker A's subsequent explanation of their strategy directly addresses Speaker B's inquiry.\n\nThe only point of slight contention is Speaker A's final utterance: \"Well, keep up the good work!\" While the preceding conversation establishes Speaker A as the one making efforts and Speaker B as the one offering encouragement, this closing remark from Speaker A could be perceived as slightly out of character or an unexpected role reversal. If directed at Speaker B, it's an unconventional closing. If it's a self-encouragement, it's an awkward way to end a direct dialogue. However, this single instance does not represent a \"significant issue\" in logical consistency or topic coherence for the overall dialogue. The main subject matter remains entirely coherent, and the conversational turns are largely appropriate and natural.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe **interactional fluency** in this dialogue is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth and natural rhythm.\n\nTwo instances of brief overlaps are noted:\n- At [00:14 - 00:15], Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap.\n- At [00:32 - 00:33], Speaker B again begins speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This is also a 1-second overlap.\n\nAccording to the evaluation criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" Both observed overlaps are brief (1 second) and do not disrupt the understanding or flow of the conversation significantly. They can be interpreted as natural conversational interruptions or eager responses. Therefore, these do not constitute \"extended overlaps\" that would be harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--343",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Is there anything I can do for you?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Yes, I am looking for a skirt. What's in fashion now?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: This one is the latest. How do you feel about\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: Oh, before I forget, do you have it in other colors as well? I want to make sure I have options.\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker A: Yes, we do have other colors. But I was about to ask how you like this one first.\n[00:19 - 00:20] Speaker B: Well, could I try it on?\n[00:21 - 00:21] Speaker A: Sure.\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker B: It's cute. The color suits my complexion. How much does it cost?\n[00:26 - 00:27] Speaker A: 400 dollars.\n[00:28 - 00:29] Speaker B: What? That's ridiculous!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial request for a skirt and fashion advice is directly addressed by Speaker A. Speaker B's question about other colors, while interrupting Speaker A, is highly relevant to the product being discussed. Speaker A handles this well by answering the question while also gently redirecting to their initial query. The subsequent turns flow naturally, from trying on the skirt, to commenting on its appearance, and finally to discussing the price. The final exchange regarding the price is also logically consistent with a shopping scenario. All speakers stay on topic, and the conversation progresses coherently.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, with most pauses being 1 second, which is natural and acceptable. The only point of concern for fluency is the overlap between Speaker A's turn (00:05 - 00:08) and Speaker B's turn (00:07 - 00:13). Speaker B begins speaking at 00:07 while Speaker A is still speaking, cutting off Speaker A's sentence (\"How do you feel about\"). This is a brief overlap (1 second of simultaneous speech). While the instructions state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" this specific instance is an interruption that prevents Speaker A from completing their thought. However, it is not an \"extended overlap\" nor does it lead to significant communication breakdown or make the conversation unintelligible. Speaker A smoothly addresses it in their next turn. Given that it's a brief overlap and doesn't cause harm to the overall conversation flow, it falls within the acceptable range as per the provided criteria.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--331",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Welcome to Beijing Tasty Restaurant. What can I do for you?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Will you please show me a table beside the window?\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Sorry, there's no table beside the window, only one table in the centre.\n[00:12 - 00:13] Speaker B: In the centre? I was\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I just remembered—do you have any tables that might be quieter? I prefer a quiet spot if possible.\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B: Unfortunately, the centre table is the quietest one we have available right now.\n[00:26 - 00:27] Speaker A: OK, that works.\n[00:28 - 00:29] Speaker B: This way, please.\n[00:29 - 00:30] Speaker A: Thank you.\n[00:31 - 00:33] Speaker B: Here's the menu. Could I take your order?\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker A: Yes. I'd like chicken, fish, some vegetables, two cokes, and two bowls of rice.\n[00:39 - 00:44] Speaker B: Is that all? We have Beijing Duck. It's so delicious. Would you like to add it\n[00:43 - 00:49] Speaker A: Oh, wait—I forgot to mention, my friend is joining me. Could you make sure the order is for two?\n[00:49 - 00:56] Speaker B: Absolutely, I'll adjust the order for two. But I was just about to ask if you'd like to try our Beijing Duck. It's very popular.\n[00:57 - 00:59] Speaker A: All right, let's add that too.\n[00:59 - 01:02] Speaker B: OK. Your food will be ready in a minute.\n[01:02 - 01:08] Speaker A: No, no, no! I need some time to wait for my friend. Please get my food ready in 20 minutes.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe primary and most severe issue regarding Response Relevance is a complete and inexplicable role reversal between Speaker A and Speaker B.\n*   Initially, Speaker A is the restaurant staff (\"Welcome to Beijing Tasty Restaurant. What can I do for you?\") and Speaker B is the customer (\"Will you please show me a table beside the window?\").\n*   Speaker A continues in the staff role by responding (\"Sorry, there's no table beside the window...\").\n*   However, at [00:13 - 00:21], Speaker A (who was the staff) suddenly acts as a customer, asking \"do you have any tables that might be quieter? I prefer a quiet spot if possible.\" This is a severe breach of logical consistency and role coherence for Speaker A.\n*   Correspondingly, at [00:21 - 00:25], Speaker B (who was the customer) responds as if they are the staff: \"Unfortunately, the centre table is the quietest one we have available right now.\" This is a severe breach of logical consistency and role coherence for Speaker B.\n*   From this point onwards, Speaker A consistently acts as the customer, and Speaker B consistently acts as the staff. This means the speaker labels `Speaker A` and `Speaker B` effectively swap their initial roles mid-conversation. This makes the overall dialogue fundamentally inconsistent and illogical in its progression of roles, which is a major detractor from its quality.\n\nWhile the turns *after* the swap are internally consistent with the *new* roles (e.g., customer ordering, staff taking order), the fact that the roles swap without any explanation or transition makes the entire interaction nonsensical from a logical consistency standpoint.\n\nA secondary, less severe, issue is the customer's request at the end ([01:02 - 01:08] Speaker A: \"Please get my food ready in 20 minutes.\") which, while a direct response to the previous statement, is an unusual and somewhat impractical request in a typical restaurant setting. However, the role swap is the dominant problem.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are two instances of extended overlaps that significantly disrupt interactional fluency:\n1.  **[00:12 - 00:21]:** Speaker B begins \"In the centre? I was\" but is immediately interrupted by Speaker A who says \"Sorry to interrupt, but I just remembered...\" and then proceeds with a lengthy 8-second turn. This is a clear, prolonged interruption where Speaker A takes over the conversational floor, preventing Speaker B from completing their thought or question.\n2.  **[00:39 - 00:49]:** Speaker B is in the middle of a sales pitch for Beijing Duck (\"Would you like to add it\") when Speaker A interrupts with \"Oh, wait—I forgot to mention, my friend is joining me...\" Speaker B's pitch is cut off and Speaker A initiates a new topic (adding a friend). This is another significant and disruptive extended overlap.\n\nThese two instances of speakers cutting each other off, especially in the middle of a sentence or a conversational turn, are harmful to the interaction's natural flow and conversational fluency. There are no long pauses detected.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--491",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I don't know why, but I really like talking about medicine.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: I like learning about medicine too.\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker A: Do you know what a liver does?\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker B: I don't know!\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker A: The liver makes bile which helps your body break down\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but does that mean the liver is essential for digestion?\n[00:17 - 00:25] Speaker A: Yes, it is. The bile helps your body digest food. But there's more to it, the liver also processes nutrients\n[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker B: That's really interesting! I think medicine is one of the most interesting subjects.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker A introduces the topic of medicine, and Speaker B immediately affirms shared interest. Speaker A then narrows the topic to a specific question about the liver, to which Speaker B responds directly. Speaker A provides an explanation, and Speaker B's interruption is a relevant clarifying question directly pertaining to the ongoing explanation. Speaker A then answers the clarification and continues the explanation, and Speaker B's final remark is an expression of interest that ties back to the initial topic of medicine, reinforcing coherence. Logical consistency and topic coherence are consistently maintained throughout the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high. Pauses between speaker turns are minimal (typically 0-1 second), indicating a natural and responsive flow. There are two instances of brief overlap:\n1.  At [00:12], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. However, this overlap is short (1 second, as Speaker A finishes at 00:13) and Speaker B explicitly apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which makes the interaction polite and aware. This type of overlap for clarification is common and not disruptive.\n2.  At [00:24], Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A. Again, this overlap is brief (1 second, as Speaker A finishes at 00:25) and functions as an enthusiastic interjection, expressing agreement and interest. This is also a natural conversational element rather than a harmful prolonged overlap.\nNeither the pauses nor the overlaps constitute \"prolonged pauses\" or \"extended overlaps\" that would harm the conversation's flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--79560",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm glad you like the dress! I wanted to make sure I looked my best for the party. Red is such a great color for me, don't you think it\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but I just remembered—did you decide on how you're going to style your hair? It's such a key part of the overall look.\n[00:13 - 00:22] Speaker A: I was thinking of wearing it down with some loose curls, but I haven't fully decided yet. I really want to make a good impression since it's\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: And you definitely will! But remember, the most important thing is to relax and enjoy yourself.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates a topic about their party dress and color. Speaker B, while interrupting, shifts the focus to another crucial aspect of an \"overall look\" for a party: hair. This shift is not a complete change of topic but rather a natural progression within the broader theme of party preparation and appearance. Speaker A then directly addresses Speaker B's question about hair, demonstrating topic coherence. Speaker B's final turn reinforces Speaker A's desire to \"make a good impression\" while also offering a supportive and relevant piece of advice about enjoyment. The conversation remains focused on the party and personal presentation, showing a logical flow of ideas even with the minor topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  `[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but I just remembered—did you decide on how you're going to style your hair? It's such a key part of the overall look.` This overlaps Speaker A's speech from `00:06 - 00:07`. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the overlap feel natural and polite rather than disruptive.\n2.  `[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: And you definitely will! But remember, the most important thing is to relax and enjoy yourself.` This overlaps Speaker A's speech from `00:21 - 00:22`. This is also a 1-second overlap.\n\nBoth overlaps are brief (1 second) and do not appear to be \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" as per the evaluation criteria. They reflect natural turn-taking dynamics where a speaker anticipates the end of a turn or interjects briefly. There are no indications of long pauses between turns. The flow feels conversational and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--7",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: What's wrong with you? Why are you scratching so much?\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker B: I feel itchy! I can't stand it anymore! I think I may be coming down with something. I feel lightheaded and dizzy, and\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: Wait, lightheaded and itchy? Those symptoms together could be serious. Have you had any other symptoms?\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B: Yeah, weak. But let me have a look. Whoa! Get away from me!\n[00:20 - 00:21] Speaker A: What's wrong?\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B: I think you have chicken pox! You are contagious! Get away! Don't breathe on me!\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: Maybe it's just a rash or an allergy! We can't be sure until I see a healthcare professional\n[00:31 - 00:38] Speaker B: Doctor? Sure, but until then, you should stay away. I didn't get chicken pox as a kid, and I've heard it can be really dangerous for adults!\n[00:39 - 00:52] Speaker A: Are you serious? You always blow things out of proportion. In any case, I think I'll go take an oatmeal bath. But, what was I saying before? Oh right, I should still see a doctor just to be sure.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or logically builds upon the previous speaker's contribution. For instance, Speaker B's \"I feel itchy!\" directly answers Speaker A's initial question about scratching. Speaker A's follow-up questions about symptoms are directly addressed by Speaker B. Speaker B's sudden outburst (\"Whoa! Get away from me!\") is immediately followed by Speaker A's \"What's wrong?\" and then Speaker B's clear explanation (\"I think you have chicken pox!\"). The conversation maintains a consistent topic of Speaker A's symptoms and the potential diagnosis, with Speaker B's reactions and concerns integrated coherently. There are no irrelevant tangents or logical inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two instances of overlaps:\n1.  [00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A starts speaking at 00:09 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:10. This is a 1-second overlap.\n2.  [00:31 - 00:38] Speaker B starts speaking at 00:31 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:32. This is also a 1-second overlap.\n\nBoth overlaps are brief and appear to be natural interjections rather than disruptive, extended overlaps. They do not hinder comprehension or the flow of conversation. There are no indications of long pauses between turns, as the dialogue progresses naturally from one speaker to the next. The turn-taking is smooth and efficient, contributing to a natural conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--322",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: This is Manager Liang's office, what can I do for you?\n[00:03 - 00:16] Speaker B: This is Wang Miao from AB company speaking. Our CEO Mr. Green has an appointment with Mr. Liang tomorrow morning. But there is a minor change in tomorrow's schedule. Mr. Green has an abrupt urgent case tomorrow and he has to attend to\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker A: Oh, that sounds serious. Should we reschedule the meeting then?\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B: Yes, definitely. He wanted me to convey his apology to Mr. Liang.\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: I'll make sure to inform Mr. Liang. And just to confirm, Mr. Green will make another appointment when Mr. Liang comes back from\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker B: Yes, exactly. Once Mr. Liang is back, we'll reach out to set up a new time.\n[00:35 - 00:37] Speaker A: Ok! Thanks for calling.\n[00:38 - 00:38] Speaker B: Bye!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logically coherent. Speaker A's initial greeting and offer of assistance are appropriate. Speaker B clearly states the purpose of the call, identifying themselves and explaining the need to reschedule due to an urgent case. Speaker A's follow-up questions and confirmations (\"Should we reschedule the meeting then?\", \"I'll make sure to inform Mr. Liang. And just to confirm...\") demonstrate active listening and logical progression of the conversation. Speaker B's replies (\"Yes, definitely.\", \"Yes, exactly.\") directly address Speaker A's points and provide necessary information. The conversation remains entirely on topic, focusing on the rescheduling of Mr. Green's appointment. There are no irrelevant diversions or illogical turns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is natural and efficient. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  Speaker A's turn ([00:15 - 00:19]) overlaps with Speaker B's turn ([00:03 - 00:16]) by 1 second (from 00:15 to 00:16).\n2.  Speaker B's turn ([00:30 - 00:35]) overlaps with Speaker A's turn ([00:24 - 00:31]) by 1 second (from 00:30 to 00:31).\nThese overlaps are very brief (1 second each) and do not disrupt the flow or clarity of communication. They suggest a natural, engaged conversation where speakers might anticipate each other's completion or interject with a quick confirmation, which is common in real-life dialogue, especially phone calls. There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns that would indicate hesitation or a breakdown in communication. The timing between turns, including the brief 1-second gaps (e.g., 00:23-00:24, 00:37-00:38), contributes to a smooth and natural conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--59594",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Hey boss, I finished going over the financial report. And I have to say, I'm pretty alarmed by some of the discrepancies I\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Alarmed? What exactly are you seeing? Show me what you're talking about.\n[00:10 - 00:19] Speaker A: Well, take a look at these expenses, for example. We're spending way too much money on unnecessary things, and it's really eating into our profits.\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker B: Hmm, you're right. We need to cut back on some of these expenses. But where do you suggest we start making\n[00:25 - 00:35] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I think travel expenses should be our first target. We can save a lot by using video conferencing instead of flying out for meetings.\n[00:36 - 00:39] Speaker B: That's a good idea. Let's put that into action right away.\n[00:39 - 00:46] Speaker A: Great. I also think we should look at our marketing budget and see if there are any areas we can trim down on.\n[00:46 - 00:50] Speaker B: Good idea. Let's take a closer look at that and see where we can save some money.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A introduces a problem (discrepancies in the financial report), and Speaker B immediately asks for clarification, maintaining logical flow. Speaker A then elaborates on the problem (unnecessary expenses), leading Speaker B to prompt for solutions. Speaker A provides specific solutions (travel expenses, marketing budget), and Speaker B acknowledges and agrees with each suggestion, indicating a clear and consistent progression towards problem-solving. There are no instances where a speaker's response deviates from the ongoing topic or introduces an irrelevant subject. The conversation builds logically from identifying an issue to proposing actionable steps.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two brief overlaps identified in the transcript:\n1.  `[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B:` begins speaking while `[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A:` is still finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap.\n2.  `[00:25 - 00:35] Speaker A:` begins speaking while `[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker B:` is still finishing their question. This is also a 1-second overlap, and Speaker A explicitly acknowledges it by saying, \"Sorry to jump in.\"\n\nBoth of these are *brief* overlaps, lasting only one second. They do not constitute \"extended overlaps\" that hinder communication or create confusion. In natural conversation, such brief overlaps are common and often indicate active listening, enthusiasm, or anticipation, rather than disruption. Speaker A's self-correction (\"Sorry to jump in\") further confirms that these are not problematic. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the conversation flows smoothly from one speaker to the next.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--101622",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Wow, thanks for showing me how to make a cake Mom!\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Of course dear, I'm happy to share my baking knowledge with you.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker A: It's so cool that you know how to bake so well. How did you learn?\n[00:11 - 00:20] Speaker B: Well, I've been baking since I was your age. My mom taught me how to bake when I was younger, and then I just kept practicing and perfecting my skills over the years,\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker A: Oh, so it was Grandma who got you started! Did she have any special recipes that she passed down to you?\n[00:26 - 00:36] Speaker B: Yes, she did! She had a fantastic chocolate cake recipe that I've used countless times. But as I was saying, I kept practicing and perfecting my skills over the years, which really helped me become a better baker.\n[00:37 - 00:44] Speaker A: That makes sense. Practice does make perfect after all. Do you have any tips on becoming a better baker?\n[00:44 - 00:50] Speaker B: Yes, actually. One of the most important things is to make sure that all of your ingredients are correctly measured. Baking is science, so if you don't have the correct measurements, your cake won't turn out right. Another tip is to be patient when mixing the batter and not to overmix it. Overmixing can result in a tough cake. And finally, always preheat your oven before baking and use an oven thermometer to double check that the\n[00:49 - 00:54] Speaker A: Oh, I always forget to preheat the oven! I'll definitely start using a thermometer too.\n[00:55 - 01:02] Speaker B: Yes, it makes a big difference. Those are just a few tips off the top of my head, but there are definitely more things that go into making great cakes!\n[01:02 - 01:09] Speaker A: Wow, thanks for all those tips Mom! I'm definitely going to try them out next time I bake a cake.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the conversation organically.\n- Speaker B's initial response (00:03-00:06) directly addresses Speaker A's gratitude.\n- Speaker B's explanation of how she learned to bake (00:11-00:20) is a direct answer to Speaker A's question (00:07-00:10).\n- Speaker A's follow-up questions about Grandma and special recipes (00:19-00:25) are a logical continuation of the topic of learning to bake from her mom.\n- Speaker B smoothly transitions back to her original point about practicing while also addressing the new question about Grandma's recipes (00:26-00:36).\n- Speaker A's request for tips (00:37-00:44) flows naturally from the discussion of becoming a better baker through practice.\n- Speaker B provides relevant and practical baking tips (00:44-00:50).\n- Speaker A's interjection about preheating the oven (00:49-00:54) shows active engagement with the tips being given.\n- Speaker B's final remarks (00:55-01:02) affirm A's comment and summarise the tips.\n- Speaker A's closing gratitude (01:02-01:09) provides a fitting conclusion.\nThe topic coherence is strong, staying focused on baking and learning skills throughout the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two instances of brief overlap (00:19-00:20 and 00:49-00:50), both lasting only 1 second. These are instances where Speaker A starts speaking just as Speaker B is concluding their sentence or thought. This type of brief overlap is very common and natural in conversational speech, indicating active listening and engagement rather than disruptive interruption. The prompt explicitly states that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" There are no long pauses between turns, and the turn-taking is smooth and continuous, contributing to a very natural and fluent conversation flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--169",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Excuse me, can you do me a favor?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Sure.\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: Where's the busiest street of this city? I am a stranger and I'm\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: Sorry, but do you mean the seventy seventh street?\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker A: Yes, that's the one. Is it far from here?\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker B: It's not far from here. You can walk there.\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker A: Well, we are so tired today. Can you tell me which bus I should take to\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B: Oh, I can totally understand. You should take Bus No. 12.\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker A: Thanks! By the way, I didn't catch if the street was far or not?\n[00:29 - 00:33] Speaker B: No worries, it's really close, just a short walk away.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's initial request for a favor is met with a polite 'Sure' from Speaker B. Speaker A's vague question about the \"busiest street\" is appropriately clarified by Speaker B, who suggests \"the seventy seventh street.\" Speaker A's confirmation and subsequent questions about distance and bus routes are met with direct, helpful, and empathetic responses from Speaker B. Speaker B's offer of Bus No. 12, coupled with an understanding remark (\"Oh, I can totally understand\"), shows good social awareness. Speaker A's repeated question about the distance (\"I didn't catch if the street was far or not?\") is a minor inconsistency in Speaker A's memory, but Speaker B handles it gracefully and reassuringly (\"No worries, it's really close, just a short walk away.\"), reiterating the information without any sign of frustration. The conversation maintains topic coherence throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1. Speaker A: `[00:03 - 00:08]` and Speaker B: `[00:07 - 00:10]`. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B seems to be interjecting to ask for clarification, which is a natural and acceptable conversational behavior, indicating active listening rather than interruption.\n2. Speaker A: `[00:17 - 00:22]` and Speaker B: `[00:21 - 00:25]`. This is also a 1-second overlap. Speaker B's \"Oh, I can totally understand\" comes in right as Speaker A is finishing, suggesting an empathetic, engaged response.\nBoth overlaps are brief and fall under the \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\" criterion. There are no noticeable long pauses between speaker turns. The turn-taking is smooth and natural, contributing to a fluid conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--412",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Excuse me. Where can I buy some cigarettes?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: There is a shop on the ground floor. It sells both Chinese and foreign brands, so\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: Oh, great! But can I also get some souvenirs there?\n[00:10 - 00:19] Speaker B: Yes, sir. There is a counter selling all kinds of souvenirs. By the way, I was about to say that the shop also offers a variety of cigars if you're interested.\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker A: That's good to know. By the way, where is the men's room?\n[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker B: There is one at the end of the corridor.\n[00:26 - 00:27] Speaker A: Thank you.\n[00:27 - 00:28] Speaker B: You are welcome.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Excuse me. Where can I buy some cigarettes?**\n    **[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: There is a shop on the ground floor. It sells both Chinese and foreign brands, so**\n    Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's question and provides additional relevant detail about the shop's offerings, demonstrating good anticipation of potential follow-up questions or preferences.\n2.  **[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: Oh, great! But can I also get some souvenirs there?**\n    **[00:10 - 00:19] Speaker B: Yes, sir. There is a counter selling all kinds of souvenirs. By the way, I was about to say that the shop also offers a variety of cigars if you're interested.**\n    Speaker B accurately answers Speaker A's new question, maintaining topic coherence by referring to the *same* shop. Speaker B then smoothly re-introduces the topic they were about to mention before being (briefly) interrupted, showing good conversational memory and logical flow (\"By the way, I was about to say that...\"). This adds value and anticipates Speaker A's needs.\n3.  **[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker A: That's good to know. By the way, where is the men's room?**\n    Speaker A acknowledges the previous information and then introduces a new, common transactional query using a natural transition phrase (\"By the way\"), which is appropriate for changing topics.\n4.  **[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker B: There is one at the end of the corridor.**\n    Speaker B provides a direct and relevant answer to the new question.\n5.  **[00:26 - 00:27] Speaker A: Thank you.**\n    **[00:27 - 00:28] Speaker B: You are welcome.**\n    The closing remarks are standard and appropriate.\n\nOverall, the responses are consistently relevant, logically flow from one turn to the next, and the topic transitions are handled naturally, indicating high quality in response relevance and logical consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits excellent fluency with only minor, natural conversational features.\n1.  **Overlap:**\n    *   There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker B (00:03-00:07) and Speaker A (00:06-00:10). Speaker B's turn ends abruptly with \"so\", suggesting they might have been about to add more information (which they later do at 00:10-00:19). Speaker A, hearing enough to respond and ask a follow-up, jumps in. This is a common and acceptable brief overlap in natural conversation, where a listener anticipates or has an immediate follow-up. It does not disrupt the conversation flow; in fact, Speaker B's later remark (\"By the way, I was about to say...\") seamlessly integrates the previous interruption.\n2.  **Pauses:**\n    *   There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn ending at 00:23 and Speaker B's turn starting at 00:24. This is a very small and natural pause, allowing for processing the question and formulating a response. It is not prolonged or awkward.\n    *   All other transitions are immediate or very brief, indicated by the continuous flow of timestamps.\n\nThe dialogue proceeds smoothly without any prolonged pauses or disruptive overlaps. The brief overlap observed is handled effectively by the speakers, indicating natural and fluent interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--634",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I want to be a veterinarian when I grow up. I think animals are so cute! What about you?\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: I really love science. I can't wait until I have the time to study hard and go to school for a degree\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but what branch of science are you most interested in?\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker B: I really want to study astrophysics.\n[00:18 - 00:22] Speaker A: That's awesome! Would you like to be an astronomer or\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker B: Just curious, do you have any specific animals you want to work with as a veterinarian?\n[00:26 - 00:33] Speaker A: I haven't decided yet, but I think exotic animals would be fascinating. But back to your question, would you like to be an astronaut?\n[00:34 - 00:37] Speaker B: No, not really. I prefer to stay on the ground!\n[00:37 - 00:38] Speaker A: Haha, fair enough.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains logical consistency, with speakers responding to each other's inquiries. However, there is a notable breakdown in topic coherence and logical flow at the 00:20 mark. Speaker B abruptly shifts the topic back to Speaker A's initial statement about being a veterinarian, interrupting Speaker A's ongoing question about astrophysics. This shows a lack of active listening to Speaker A's immediate utterance and breaks the natural progression of the conversation. Speaker A attempts to re-establish coherence by answering B's new question and then immediately redirecting back to their original question (\"But back to your question, would you like to be an astronaut?\"), which helps mitigate the initial disruption, but the initial break is a clear issue in relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is significantly impacted by an extended overlap and turn-taking issue. At [00:20 - 00:25], Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still talking [00:18 - 00:22]. This 2-second overlap results in Speaker A being cut off mid-sentence (\"Would you like to be an astronomer or\"), and Speaker B immediately introduces a new question on a different topic. This is not a \"brief overlap\" but a disruptive one that severely affects the conversational flow and indicates poor turn-taking. There are no long pauses detected between turns. The primary fluency issue lies in this significant, disruptive overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--46163",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I can't believe you just won the lottery. I mean, of all people, why did it have to be you?\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: I don't know. I guess it was just my lucky day, I\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: Lucky? You must be kidding me! There's nothing lucky about winning the lottery. It's just a waste of money.\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: Well, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to use it to help others.\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker A: Oh, please. You're just going to use it to help yourself. You're never going to think about\n[00:22 - 00:31] Speaker B: Help myself? Look, Kynnedi, I know you don't believe me, but I've actually been thinking of donating a portion to charity. Why do you always assume the worst about me?\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker A: Because I'm not happy for you! I don't want you to have the money. It should have been me who won.\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker B: Well, it wasn't you who won, it was me. And there's nothing you can do about it.\n[00:42 - 00:49] Speaker A: Just wait, Meagan. Just wait and see what happens when I win the lottery too. Then we'll see who's really lucky.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A consistently expresses disbelief, resentment, and envy towards Speaker B winning the lottery, evolving from general negativity (\"waste of money\") to direct accusation (\"help yourself\") and finally revealing the core reason for their animosity: \"It should have been me who won.\" Speaker B's responses directly address Speaker A's accusations and challenges, defending their intentions (\"not going to waste it,\" \"donate to charity\") and asserting their reality (\"it wasn't you who won, it was me\"). The topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on the lottery win and the interpersonal conflict it creates. Each turn builds on the previous one, maintaining a clear narrative flow of an escalating argument.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, particularly given the nature of the conversation. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  [00:07 - 00:08]: Speaker A overlaps Speaker B for 1 second. Speaker A interrupts Speaker B.\n2.  [00:22 - 00:23]: Speaker B overlaps Speaker A for 1 second. Speaker B interrupts Speaker A.\n\nThese overlaps are short and natural, indicative of a heated and emotionally charged argument where speakers are eager to interject or defend themselves. They do not constitute \"extended overlaps\" that would hinder comprehension or feel unnatural. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the conversation flows at a rapid, uninterrupted pace, which further enhances the realism of a conflictual exchange. The absence of prolonged silences or excessive overtalk contributes to the dynamic and natural feel of the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--38",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: It's partly your own fault. You should never let in anyone like that unless you're expecting a visit\n[00:05 - 00:14] Speaker B: It's all very well to say that, but someone comes to the door and says 'electricity' or 'gas' and you automatically think he is OK, especially if he shows you a card.\n[00:15 - 00:26] Speaker A: I get that, but what I was trying to say earlier is that you should never let in anyone like that unless you're expecting them. Even if they show you a card, it's better to verify with the company first.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B directly addresses Speaker A's initial assertion (\"It's all very well to say that, but...\"), providing a common scenario as a counterpoint. Speaker A then acknowledges Speaker B's perspective (\"I get that\") before reiterating and expanding on their original advice, adding a practical step (verifying with the company). The conversation flows logically, with each turn building upon the previous one and staying perfectly on topic regarding the issue of letting strangers into one's home. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant contributions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The timestamps indicate immediate turn-taking without any prolonged pauses between speakers (e.g., Speaker A finishes at 0:05, Speaker B starts at 0:05; Speaker B finishes at 0:14, Speaker A starts at 0:15). There are no extended overlaps indicated in the transcript. The transitions are natural and conversational, reflecting a smooth and continuous exchange between the speakers.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--226",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: So, now I need your help again, if you don't mind. I'm taking a date to a restaurant.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: I'd love to help you! What is your budget for the evening? I\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: She strikes me as being very sophisticated. Only the best will do for her.\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker B: Well, what do you think about our very own hotel restaurant? It is very upscale, with a three-star Michelin rating,\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker A: I don't want to be cooped up in my own hotel tonight. How about another restaurant?\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker B: The Gramercy Tavern is highly rated. It has great food and live jazz, but it's not cheap.\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker A: Yes, that sounds like a winner. By the way, what was the rating of our hotel restaurant again?\n[00:34 - 00:39] Speaker B: It has a three-star rating. Would you like me to call the Gramercy Tavern to reserve a table?\n[00:39 - 00:42] Speaker A: Yes, please. I'm already looking forward to it.\n[00:42 - 00:46] Speaker B: I'm already dialing, sir. I'll make sure you get the best table available.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance throughout.\n- **Logical consistency:** Each turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B's initial question about budget is a natural follow-up to A needing help with a restaurant. A's response about \"sophisticated\" and \"only the best\" implicitly answers the budget question by setting a high-quality expectation. B's suggestions (hotel restaurant, then Gramercy Tavern) are relevant to A's stated needs and rejections. A's final question about the hotel restaurant's rating, while a brief digression, is still related to the earlier topic and doesn't derail the main goal; it's a natural confirmation of information. B's proactive offer to call for reservations is highly relevant and helpful.\n- **Topic coherence:** The conversation remains consistently focused on finding a suitable restaurant for Speaker A's date. The brief return to the hotel restaurant rating does not break topic coherence but rather clarifies a detail within the overall theme.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- **Extended overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps detected:\n    - [00:07 - 00:08] (1 second overlap between Speaker B and Speaker A)\n    - [00:17 - 00:18] (1 second overlap between Speaker B and Speaker A)\n    These are precisely the \"brief overlaps in conversation\" that are explicitly stated as acceptable in the scoring criteria. They indicate a natural, conversational flow where speakers anticipate each other or quickly interject. They are not prolonged or disruptive.\n- **Long pauses:** There are small pauses (approximately 1 second) between turns, for example:\n    - [00:22 - 00:23] (1 second pause between Speaker A and Speaker B)\n    - [00:28 - 00:29] (1 second pause between Speaker B and Speaker A)\nThese are \"small pauses\" and are acceptable. There are no instances of \"long pauses between speaker turns\" that would hinder the conversation's flow. The pacing feels natural and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--139425",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Brianna, isn't that sunset just gorgeous?\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: Yes, it's absolutely stunning. I love how the colors blend together to create such a beautiful gradient across\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: Oh, speaking of the colors, do you think they look different because of the time of year?\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker B: That's a good point. The colors do seem richer in autumn. I wonder if it's because of the angle of the sun or maybe even the atmosphere.\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker A: I know, right? It makes me feel so calm and happy. Just looking at it makes me feel at peace, like\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but should we take a picture before the light changes? It's fading fast.\n[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker A: Good idea! We should definitely capture it so we can remember this moment forever.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance.\n- Speaker B's first response directly addresses Speaker A's initial observation about the sunset's beauty and elaborates on its colors, maintaining topic coherence.\n- Speaker A's follow-up question (\"speaking of the colors, do you think they look different because of the time of year?\") logically builds upon Speaker B's mention of colors.\n- Speaker B responds directly to the \"time of year\" question, offering plausible reasons, which demonstrates logical consistency.\n- Speaker A then shifts to the emotional impact of the sunset (\"makes me feel so calm and happy\"), which is a natural progression from appreciating its beauty.\n- Speaker B's interjection (\"Sorry to cut in, but should we take a picture before the light changes?\") is highly relevant to the immediate situation (observing a fading sunset) and the preceding appreciation of its beauty, proposing an action that preserves the experience. It also logically follows from Speaker A's incomplete thought, suggesting an urgent, practical response to the shared moment.\n- Speaker A's final response (\"Good idea! We should definitely capture it...\") is a direct and positive reaction to Speaker B's suggestion, completing the action-oriented turn.\nOverall, the conversation flows naturally with each turn logically connected to the previous one, maintaining a consistent focus on the sunset while exploring different facets of the experience.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - `[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A:` starts at 0:08 while `[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B:` ends at 0:09, resulting in a 1-second overlap. This is a minor, brief overlap where Speaker A picks up on Speaker B's last word (\"across\" or \"gradient\") to introduce a new thought, which is common in natural conversation.\n    - `[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker B:` starts at 0:26 while `[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker A:` ends at 0:27, resulting in a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this by saying \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating a self-correction for the interjection, which adds to the naturalness of the dialogue. The urgency (\"It's fading fast\") also justifies the brief interruption.\n- There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns.\nThe brief, functional overlaps are acceptable and contribute to the natural, unscripted feel of the conversation rather than being disruptive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--57101",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Hey, Mom. I finished washing the dishes for tonight. I know you must be really tired after work, so I didn't want to leave them for you.\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B: Wynter, thank you so much! You have no idea how much this means to me. I really needed a\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: Actually, I do have an idea—you're always doing so much for us, so I wanted to give you a break.\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker B: Well, thank you again. You're such a considerate son. I'm really lucky to have you as my little helper\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: You don't need to say anything more, Mom. I just want you to relax tonight. Love you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates the conversation with a thoughtful action (washing dishes) and a clear, empathetic reason. Speaker B's response expresses genuine gratitude, which is a direct and appropriate reaction. Speaker A's subsequent interruption (\"Actually, I do have an idea...\") is not disruptive but rather a logical continuation that builds on Speaker B's expression of gratitude, explaining their motivation further and demonstrating understanding. Speaker B's second turn reinforces gratitude and praise, which is consistent with the positive sentiment of the interaction. Finally, Speaker A's closing statement (\"You don't need to say anything more, Mom. I just want you to relax tonight. Love you.\") perfectly ties back to the initial intent of giving Speaker B a break and brings a warm, natural conclusion to the conversation. The topic coherence is maintained throughout, focusing on gratitude, care, and family affection.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates strong interactional fluency. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural and engaged conversation flow. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  `[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B: Wynter, thank you so much! You have no idea how much this means to me. I really needed a`\n2.  `[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: Actually, I do have an idea—you're always doing so much for us, so I wanted to give you a break.`\n    Here, Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This is a very brief overlap (approximately 1 second, from 0:13 to 0:14) and is indicative of active listening and enthusiasm, where Speaker A is eager to respond to Speaker B's expression of \"no idea how much this means to me.\" It feels natural and not at all disruptive.\n3.  `[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker B: Well, thank you again. You're such a considerate son. I'm really lucky to have you as my little helper`\n4.  `[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: You don't need to say anything more, Mom. I just want you to relax tonight. Love you.`\n    Similarly, Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This overlap (approximately 1 second, from 0:24 to 0:25) is also brief and serves to gently cut off Speaker B's continued praise, reinforcing Speaker A's original intent for Speaker B to relax. Both overlaps are examples of common, natural conversational dynamics that show engagement rather than creating impedance or misunderstanding. They are well within the acceptable range of \"brief overlaps.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--554",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Do you know anything about bees?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Not really - I'm not really into science.\n[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker A: Bees are cool! In fact, they're better pollinators than humans because they can work harder and longer to pollinate plants,\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but how exactly do they manage to work harder and longer than humans?\n[00:17 - 00:27] Speaker A: They have an incredible work ethic and their bodies are perfectly adapted for the task. But I haven't even mentioned that bees will sacrifice themselves if another bee in the hive is in danger\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker B: Wow, that's incredible! But I'm curious, what do you mean by sacrifice themselves? How does that work?\n[00:32 - 00:41] Speaker A: If a bee in the hive is injured, others will protect it even at the cost of their own lives. It's a fascinating aspect of their behavior.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial \"Not really\" response is directly relevant to Speaker A's question about bees. Speaker A then introduces a specific aspect of bees (pollination), which Speaker B picks up on with a relevant clarifying question. Speaker A answers this question and then seamlessly transitions to another fascinating fact about bees (sacrifice). Speaker B immediately shows engagement by asking for clarification on this new point, and Speaker A provides a clear, relevant answer. The conversation flows naturally, with each turn building upon the previous one or introducing a closely related new point that the other speaker then engages with. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between turns. The overlaps at [00:12 - 00:16] (Speaker B overlapping Speaker A by 1 second) and [00:26 - 00:32] (Speaker B overlapping Speaker A by 1 second) are very brief. In both cases, Speaker B's quick response indicates active listening and eagerness to engage, rather than an interruption that derails the conversation. Speaker B even explicitly acknowledges the first overlap (\"Sorry to cut in\"), demonstrating awareness. These brief overlaps contribute to the natural, dynamic feel of the conversation and are well within acceptable conversational norms, not hindering the flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--275",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Is there a bus that'll go all the way to Sons from PHS?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Where is this Sons located exactly?\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: The Sons on Fair Oaks and Orange Grove.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: Oh, okay. You're going to need to take two buses to get to that Sons.\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker A: Which buses will I have to take?\n[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker B: First, you need to get on the 268 going west.\n[00:19 - 00:20] Speaker A: Then what do I do after\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker B: Sorry, just to clarify, do you know where to catch the 268?\n[00:24 - 00:30] Speaker A: Yes, I do. But after that, you said I need to get off on Fair Oaks and Washington, right?\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker B: Exactly. Then you get on the 261, and it'll take you the rest of the way to Sons.\n[00:35 - 00:37] Speaker A: There's nothing else?\n[00:37 - 00:38] Speaker B: That's all there is to it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn is a direct and logical continuation of the previous one, addressing the immediate query or providing necessary clarification.\n- Speaker B's initial question \"Where is this Sons located exactly?\" is highly relevant as it's crucial information for providing accurate bus directions.\n- Speaker A's subsequent questions (\"Which buses will I have to take?\", \"Then what do I do after\", \"There's nothing else?\") are all logical follow-ups to get the complete information.\n- Speaker B's clarifying question \"Sorry, just to clarify, do you know where to catch the 268?\" is also very relevant, ensuring the provided directions are practical and actionable for Speaker A.\n- Speaker A's recall and anticipation (\"But after that, you said I need to get off on Fair Oaks and Washington, right?\") shows good topic coherence and active listening.\nThe conversation maintains a clear focus on the task of getting bus directions, with no irrelevant tangents or misunderstood turns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n- **Overlaps:** There are a few very brief overlaps (e.g., [00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A overlaps for 1 second with Speaker B, [00:20 - 00:23] Speaker B starts almost simultaneously with Speaker A). These overlaps are natural and indicate active, engaged conversation rather than disruptive interruptions. They are well within the \"brief overlaps are acceptable\" criterion.\n- **Pauses:** Pauses between turns are consistently short, typically 1 second (e.g., [00:03 - 00:04], [00:12 - 00:13], [00:18 - 00:19], [00:23 - 00:24]). There are no \"long pauses\" that would indicate hesitation, disengagement, or a breakdown in communication. The turn-taking is smooth and efficient.\nOverall, the pacing and timing of the dialogue are very natural and contribute to a highly fluent interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--663",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I just heard that Apple went public. How are you trading?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: I'm doing great! I bought in at the IPO.\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: How exciting! Have you seen the share price go up significantly since\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but do you think it's a good time to buy more shares now?\n[00:15 - 00:25] Speaker A: It has, although a little slowly. But I'm not sure if now is the best time to buy more. That's no problem! I'm waiting for it to go even higher.\n[00:25 - 00:27] Speaker B: Any luck finding stock in Amazon?\n[00:28 - 00:30] Speaker A: No. They're running out of stock! I was\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker B: Oh, I wanted to mention, have you considered diversifying your portfolio with other tech stocks?\n[00:35 - 00:42] Speaker A: I heard the same thing. You might be able to get lucky later though. But I haven't looked into other tech stocks yet.\n[00:42 - 00:46] Speaker B: Yeah, I hope so. Thank you for the conversation, Bob!\n[00:46 - 00:48] Speaker A: Hey, you're welcome!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Logical Consistency:** The responses are logically consistent throughout the dialogue. Speakers answer questions directly (e.g., B answers \"How are you trading?\" at [00:04], A answers \"good time to buy more shares?\" at [00:15], A answers \"luck finding stock in Amazon?\" at [00:28]). Speaker A also acknowledges Speaker B's apology for interrupting at [00:15] by saying \"That's no problem!\".\n*   **Topic Coherence:** The initial topic (Apple's IPO, trading, share price) is well-maintained and built upon for the first half of the conversation. At [00:25], Speaker B abruptly shifts the topic from Apple to Amazon (\"Any luck finding stock in Amazon?\"). This is a sudden, unbridged transition, though it remains within the broader theme of tech stock investment. Speaker B then attempts to generalize this to \"diversifying your portfolio with other tech stocks\" at [00:30], which connects to the previous mention of Amazon and the initial Apple topic. While the transitions could be smoother, speakers generally respond to the *immediate* previous turn, maintaining local coherence. The shift is not entirely illogical but lacks explicit linking. Overall, it's appropriate, but the abrupt shift could be slightly improved.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There are two instances of overlaps:\n    *   At [00:11], Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still talking (A finishes at [00:12]). This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which indicates self-awareness and politeness. The content of B's speech is directly relevant to A's implied question, making it a natural, non-disruptive, brief overlap.\n    *   At [00:30], Speaker B starts speaking at the exact moment Speaker A's unfinished sentence (\"I was\") ends. This is a very brief overlap. Speaker A's sentence is cut off, and Speaker B immediately introduces a new, albeit related, topic. While it's brief, the abruptness of the topic change combined with the cut-off might be slightly less smooth than the first overlap, but it does not constitute an \"extended\" or \"harmful\" overlap as per the criteria.\n*   **Long Pauses:** No long pauses are detected between speaker turns. The conversation flows at a natural pace.\n*   **Overall Fluency:** The conversation demonstrates good fluency despite the brief overlaps. The speakers respond promptly and maintain a good conversational rhythm. The overlaps are either acknowledged or very brief and do not hinder comprehension or the flow of the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--59757",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:12] Speaker A: I'm not sure if I'm ready to go yet, Mom. There's still so much I want to do here with you and Dad and my sister. I don't know if I can leave all of you just yet, especially\n[00:11 - 00:25] Speaker B: I understand, sweetheart, but you have to remember that we'll always be here for you. You can come back and visit anytime you want. But your life is out there now, waiting for you. You need to go out and experience everything that life has to offer. Don't let anything hold you back, including us.\n[00:25 - 00:35] Speaker A: I know you're right, Mom. It's just really hard to say goodbye. Especially to my little sister. I feel like I've barely gotten to spend any time with her and I\n[00:34 - 00:39] Speaker B: I know it's tough, but she understands that you have to go now. She's a big girl and she'll be fine without you for a little while. Just make sure you keep in touch with her, okay? And with us too. We love you very much and we're going to miss having you around the house all the time. But like I said, don't let anything hold you back from living your life the way you want to live it.\n[00:39 - 00:50] Speaker A: Alright, Mom. I'll try not to let anything hold me back. I promise to keep in touch with all of you as often as I can. And I'll come visit as soon as I can too.\n[00:50 - 00:54] Speaker B: Okay, Kiyah. We love you very much. Be safe out there and have fun!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A expresses a natural emotional conflict about leaving home, and Speaker B consistently responds with understanding, reassurance, and gentle encouragement for independence. Each turn builds logically on the previous one:\n- Speaker A's initial hesitation is met by Speaker B's empathetic and forward-looking advice.\n- Speaker A's specific concern about her little sister is directly addressed by Speaker B's reassurance about the sister's understanding and the need to keep in touch.\n- Speaker A's final acceptance and promise to keep in touch directly follow Speaker B's encouraging words.\nThe conversation remains consistently on topic, addressing the emotional challenge of leaving home and the parent-child bond, without any irrelevant detours or illogical shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n- [00:11 - 00:12]: Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap.\n- [00:34 - 00:35]: Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This is also a 1-second overlap.\nAs per the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" These 1-second overlaps are indeed brief and sound natural, indicating active listening and a desire to interject with support or understanding as the other speaker concludes their thought, rather than being prolonged or disruptive \"overlapping turns.\" There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The flow of conversation feels natural and dynamic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--94715",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I'm tired of always being the one who has to compromise!\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Well, maybe if you weren't so stubborn, we could actually find a\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: Stubborn? Do you even realize how much I've already bent over backwards just to keep things civil between us?\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker B: Oh, and I suppose it's all my fault that we're stuck in this impasse?\n[00:17 - 00:21] Speaker A: Well, if you would just listen to reason for a moment,\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker B: Reason? You call what you're saying reasonable? It's your way or the highway with you, Payge!\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker A: That's not true! I'm just trying to find a middle ground here.\n[00:29 - 00:32] Speaker B: And what about my needs? What about what I want?\n[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker A: Can't you just be flexible for once?\n[00:35 - 00:38] Speaker B: No, I can't! And I'm done with this discussion.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates with a complaint about compromising, which Speaker B immediately refutes by calling A stubborn. This sets a clear argumentative tone. Subsequent turns from both speakers directly address, challenge, or counter the previous speaker's points. For example, Speaker A's \"Stubborn?\" directly responds to B's accusation, and B's \"Reason?\" directly challenges A's claim. The conversation maintains a consistent focus on the conflict and the individuals' roles within it. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant statements. Each response builds upon the previous one, even when confrontational, demonstrating excellent response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very natural for a heated discussion or argument. There are two brief overlaps identified:\n*   [00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B's tail end ([00:04 - 00:07]). This overlap lasts for about 1 second (from 00:06 to 00:07).\n*   [00:20 - 00:25] Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A's tail end ([00:17 - 00:21]). This overlap also lasts for about 1 second (from 00:20 to 00:21).\nThese are very short, brief overlaps, which are common and natural in argumentative or emotionally charged conversations, indicating an eagerness to interject or respond. They do not constitute \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" overlaps that would hinder understanding.\n\nRegarding pauses, the time gaps between turns are minimal (e.g., 1 second pauses at 00:03-00:04, 00:13-00:14, 00:34-00:35), or turns are immediate/overlapping. There are no long or prolonged pauses that would disrupt the flow or suggest a lack of engagement. The pace of the conversation is quick and responsive, which is typical for a disagreement.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--66",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: John dates her seven times a week.\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Really? That's a straws in the wind, you\n[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but seven times a week seems a bit excessive, don't you think? Do you think he's trying to make a point or something?\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker B: It does seem like a lot. But I was going to say, it's a straws in the wind, you know, a sign that maybe he's fallen for her.\n[00:19 - 00:27] Speaker A: Yeah, I was thinking the same. They suit each other. A perfect match between a man and a woman who\n[00:26 - 00:33] Speaker B: Oh, speaking of a perfect match, do you think their personalities really align? Like, do they complement each other well?\n[00:33 - 00:40] Speaker A: Definitely. I was just saying, they're a perfect match between a man and a girl. They seem to balance each other out.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and maintain strong logical consistency and topic coherence throughout.\n1.  **[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B:** Speaker B's initial use of \"straws in the wind\" is slightly unconventional for describing something as overt as \"seven times a week,\" which usually implies small, subtle signs. However, Speaker B immediately clarifies their intended meaning as \"a sign that maybe he's fallen for her\" at [00:12], which makes the statement logically consistent within their own frame of reference.\n2.  **[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker A:** Speaker A's interruption and questioning of the \"excessive\" nature of dating seven times a week is a direct, relevant, and logical response to the preceding statement.\n3.  **[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker B:** Speaker B directly addresses Speaker A's point about excessiveness (\"It does seem like a lot\") before clarifying their original statement, demonstrating excellent coherence and responsiveness.\n4.  **[00:19 - 00:27] Speaker A:** Speaker A picks up on Speaker B's \"fallen for her\" idea by introducing the concept of them \"suiting each other\" and being a \"perfect match,\" maintaining the topic flow seamlessly.\n5.  **[00:26 - 00:33] Speaker B:** Speaker B's interjection \"Oh, speaking of a perfect match, do you think their personalities really align?\" is a highly relevant follow-up question that capitalizes on Speaker A's previous phrase, pushing the conversation deeper into the topic of their compatibility.\n6.  **[00:33 - 00:40] Speaker A:** Speaker A directly answers Speaker B's question, completing the thought from their earlier turn and reinforcing the idea of them balancing each other out.\n\nOverall, the conversation progresses logically, with each speaker building on the previous turn and maintaining focus on the central topic of the couple's relationship.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good, demonstrating natural conversational dynamics.\n1.  **Overlap [00:04 - 00:05]:** Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. This is a 1-second overlap where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still completing their thought (\"you\"). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the interruption with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which mitigates any negative impact and indicates active listening and eagerness to contribute. This is a common and natural occurrence in dynamic conversations, where participants are engaged and occasionally anticipate or jump in slightly too early.\n2.  **Overlap [00:26 - 00:27]:** Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. This is also a 1-second overlap. Speaker B picks up on Speaker A's phrase \"perfect match\" and interjects a related question. This type of overlap, often called a \"collaborative\" or \"affirmative\" overlap, is typical in natural speech. It shows engagement and that the listener is anticipating the speaker's point or wants to elaborate on a specific word/phrase.\n3.  **Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and smooth, indicating a continuous flow of conversation.\n\nBoth overlaps are brief (1 second) and do not appear to be \"extended\" or \"prolonged,\" nor do they seem to disrupt the conversational flow in a harmful way. Instead, they contribute to the sense of an active and engaged discussion.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--462",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Where is the shelf of best-sellers?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Books in the first aisle are all best sellers.\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: Could you give me some advice on books for killing time on the train? I'm\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: Do you prefer something light-hearted or more thought-provoking?\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker A: Well, do you like novels?\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker B: Yes, very much. Which one is the latest?\n[00:17 - 00:32] Speaker A: Here is one written by a famous Japanese novelist. You can have a look. Oh, by the way, I was going to ask earlier—what kind of train ride are you taking? A long one or just a short commute? It might help narrow down the options.\n[00:32 - 00:35] Speaker B: It's a long ride, so something engaging would be great.\n[00:35 - 00:38] Speaker A: In that case, this novel should be perfect.\n[00:38 - 00:39] Speaker B: Thank you for your help.\n[00:40 - 00:41] Speaker A: My pleasure.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with Speaker A asking for the location of best-sellers, which Speaker B answers directly and appropriately. This initial exchange is logically consistent and coherent.\n\nHowever, the conversation significantly falters in response relevance and logical consistency from [00:12] onwards.\n1.  **[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A asks for advice on books for *themselves* (Speaker A).**\n2.  **[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B appropriately asks for clarification from Speaker A (\"Do you prefer something light-hearted or more thought-provoking?\").** This is a good way for the advisor (Speaker B) to narrow down options for the advisee (Speaker A).\n3.  **[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker A's response \"Well, do you like novels?\" is highly illogical.** Speaker A, who is seeking advice, should have answered Speaker B's question about their own preferences. Instead, Speaker A turns the question back to Speaker B, asking about *Speaker B's* preferences. This breaks logical consistency and derails the original purpose of the advice-seeking interaction.\n4.  **[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker B answers Speaker A's misplaced question (\"Yes, very much.\") but then asks Speaker A \"Which one is the latest?\".** This implies Speaker B is now asking Speaker A for a recommendation *for Speaker B*. The roles of advisor and advisee have become completely confused or reversed.\n5.  **[00:17 - 00:32] Speaker A then provides a book recommendation *to Speaker B* (\"Here is one written by a famous Japanese novelist. You can have a look.\").** This further confirms the role reversal, where Speaker A, who initially sought advice, is now giving it. Speaker A then attempts to get back on track by asking Speaker B about their train ride (\"Oh, by the way, I was going to ask earlier—what kind of train ride are you taking?\"), which is information *Speaker B* (now the *advisee*) needs to provide for *Speaker A* (now the *advisor*) to give appropriate advice. This section is very muddled, as Speaker A (the initial advisee) is giving a recommendation to Speaker B (the initial advisor), and then asking for details from Speaker B as if Speaker A is the advisor.\n6.  The subsequent turns ([00:32 - 00:35] Speaker B providing info, [00:35 - 00:38] Speaker A giving a final recommendation, [00:38 - 00:39] Speaker B thanking A) consistently show Speaker A acting as the advisor and Speaker B as the advisee, which is the opposite of the initial request.\n\nIn summary, the core issue is a significant breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence regarding the roles of the speakers in the advice-seeking interaction. The conversation drifts into a state where the initial advisee becomes the advisor, and vice versa, without any clear or logical transition. This constitutes significant issues in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nI will evaluate extended overlaps and long pauses.\n1.  **Overlaps:**\n    *   There is one indicated overlap: `[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B` begins while `[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A` is still speaking. This means Speaker B starts speaking one second before Speaker A finishes (00:09 to 00:10 overlap). This is a brief overlap (1 second) where Speaker B cuts off Speaker A's last word (\"I'm\"). The instructions state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\". This overlap is not extended or harmful to the flow.\n\n2.  **Pauses:**\n    *   `[00:04 - 00:05]` (1 second pause): This is a small, acceptable pause between turns.\n    *   `[00:39 - 00:40]` (1 second pause): This is also a small, acceptable pause before the closing remark.\n    *   There are no long or prolonged pauses indicated that would disrupt the conversation flow.\n\nOverall, the interactional fluency is good. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that hinder the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--37455",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, I saw you from across the room and just had to come say hi.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Hey! Thanks for coming over. I'm just grabbing\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Sorry, I didn't catch your name. I'm Donato. It's nice to meet you.\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B: Oh, no worries! I'm Emma. Nice to meet you too. So, what brings you here tonight?\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker A: Just looking to have some fun and meet new people. I'm really glad I ran into you.\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B: Me too. We should definitely exchange numbers\n[00:25 - 00:33] Speaker A: Do you come to these events often? I mean, it'd be great to know if there's a chance we'll bump into each other again.\n[00:33 - 00:39] Speaker B: Not too often, but I do enjoy them when I can. And yes, we should definitely hang out more often.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building coherently on the established topic.\n- Speaker A initiates the conversation directly and politely.\n- Speaker B responds positively and attempts to continue their action before being interrupted.\n- Speaker A's interruption to introduce themselves is a socially common way to progress an initial encounter, and they apologize for it, making it relevant to the social context.\n- Speaker B graciously accepts the apology, introduces themselves, and then asks an open-ended question (\"So, what brings you here tonight?\") to keep the conversation going.\n- Speaker A answers the question directly and adds a compliment, which is relevant to the developing rapport.\n- Speaker B reciprocates the sentiment and proposes a concrete step for future interaction (\"We should definitely exchange numbers\").\n- Speaker A's question about attending events often directly relates to B's suggestion of exchanging numbers, indicating a desire to ensure future encounters, which makes it highly relevant and builds upon the theme of potential future interaction.\n- Speaker B provides a direct answer and then reaffirms the desire to hang out more, reinforcing the previous turns.\nThere are no irrelevant tangents, illogical responses, or significant breaks in topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses identified in the transcript. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  **[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B:** Speaker A begins to speak (\"Sorry, I didn't catch your name...\") while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence (\"I'm just grabbing\"). This overlap is only 1 second long. Speaker A immediately apologizes, which indicates awareness and politeness. This type of brief, polite interruption is common in natural conversation and does not hinder fluency; rather, it can signal eagerness or an attempt to quickly move the conversation forward.\n2.  **[00:25 - 00:26] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B:** Speaker A starts their question (\"Do you come to these events often?\") while Speaker B is finishing their suggestion (\"...exchange numbers\"). This overlap is also very brief (1 second). Given the context (B suggesting exchanging numbers, and A's question being about meeting again), this brief overlap indicates enthusiasm and a desire to engage, rather than being a disruptive \"prolonged\" overlap. It shows an engaged conversational flow where speakers anticipate each other's turns.\n\nNeither of these overlaps is prolonged or harmful to the conversation's flow. They are characteristic of natural, engaged speech.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--287",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I want to send this package by first-class mail.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Do you want it insured?\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker A: Yes, for 50 dollars, please. I'd also like some stamps--a book of 22 and three air I was\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but do you need any tracking on the package, or just insurance?\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker A: Just insurance for now. But I was saying I need three airmail stamps.\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker B: You'll have to get those at the stamp window over there, next to general delivery.\n[00:25 - 00:27] Speaker A: Can I get money orders there, too?\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker B: No, that's to the left, three windows down the hall.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or naturally builds upon the previous one.\n- Speaker B's initial question about insurance is a direct and logical follow-up to Speaker A's request to send a package.\n- Speaker A's response covers the insurance detail and then naturally transitions to another related service request (stamps), which is common in a post office context.\n- Speaker B's interruption to clarify package details (tracking vs. insurance) before addressing the stamp request is logically sound, prioritizing the initial transaction. Their \"Sorry to cut in\" acknowledges the interruption but maintains coherence by keeping the focus on the primary task.\n- Speaker A's response clearly answers the clarification and then smoothly brings the conversation back to the interrupted topic (airmail stamps).\n- Speaker B's information about where to get stamps is directly relevant to Speaker A's request.\n- Speaker A's question about money orders is a logical extension, asking if another related service can be obtained at the same specific location just mentioned.\n- Speaker B's final answer about the money orders' location is precise and directly responsive.\nThere are no instances of misunderstanding, irrelevant responses, or significant topic drifts. The conversation flows naturally and efficiently towards the customer's needs.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The gaps are minimal (1 second, e.g., 0:02-0:03, 0:04-0:04, 0:20-0:21, 0:24-0:25) and contribute to natural conversational rhythm, not a breakdown in fluency.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one instance of an overlap indicated by Speaker B saying, \"Sorry to cut in\" at [0:11]. This explicitly acknowledges an interruption. While an overlap did occur, it was brief (Speaker A's turn ends at 0:11, Speaker B's starts at 0:11) and was immediately managed by Speaker B. The prompt states that \"brief overlaps are acceptable, while prolonged overlaps are harmful.\" This specific overlap falls into the acceptable category because it is brief, intentional (to clarify), and immediately acknowledged, demonstrating good conversational etiquette rather than a fluency breakdown. It does not hinder the flow or understanding of the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--221",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:19] Speaker A: It depends on how long you take to pay it back. If we lend you ten thousand dollars at an annual interest rate of ten percent for forty-eight months, you would have to pay each month a portion of the loan which is called the principal and another small portion of the annual interest rate. This of course is considering that you don't miss any\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but I just remembered—what if I have a bad credit score? Would that affect the loan terms significantly?\n[00:25 - 00:43] Speaker A: Yes, that is a very serious problem. The bank must assess your personal information, past loans, assets, and any other relevant information such as your credit score in order to approve your loan. But to finish my earlier point, the monthly payment also depends on not defaulting on payments.\n[00:43 - 00:46] Speaker B: You know what? I don't really need the money. Thanks anyways!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A begins by explaining loan terms. Speaker B's interruption to ask about credit score is highly relevant, as it directly impacts loan terms and shows active engagement. Speaker A addresses this new, important variable directly and accurately, then attempts to return to the previous point, demonstrating logical flow and an attempt to maintain topic coherence. Speaker B's final statement, while abrupt in ending the conversation, is a clear and direct response to the overall context of discussing loans. It logically concludes their participation based on a personal decision (\"I don't really need the money\"), rather than an irrelevant or inconsistent response to Speaker A's last utterance. The conversation maintains a clear thread, even with the shift initiated by Speaker B.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates good fluency. There is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at `[00:18 - 00:19]`. However, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to cut in,\" which makes the overlap acceptable and natural, indicative of a polite and engaged speaker. There are no other significant overlaps or long pauses indicated by the timestamps. The turn-taking feels natural and responsive, with Speaker B interjecting for a clarification and Speaker A addressing it promptly. The flow of conversation is smooth and realistic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--633",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: So, what are your plans for the holidays?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: My plans are pretty open. I like to travel a lot!\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: Where have you traveled to recently?\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: I've been to Buenos Aires a couple of times. The city has a lot of modern architecture that\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I have always wanted to know, how do you manage your travel expenses? Any tips?\n[00:19 - 00:28] Speaker B: I usually budget carefully and look for deals on flights and accommodation. But coming back to Buenos Aires, I haven't mentioned its vibrant cultural scene yet which includes\n[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker A: Cultural scene sounds fascinating! But I am curious, did you find it easy to navigate the city as a tourist?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue shows mixed performance in response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker B consistently provides relevant answers and attempts to maintain topic coherence by trying to elaborate on Buenos Aires. However, Speaker A repeatedly shifts the topic, preventing a deeper discussion on any single point. For example, Speaker A interrupts Speaker B's description of Buenos Aires to ask about travel expenses, and then, after Speaker B attempts to return to the cultural scene of Buenos Aires, Speaker A immediately introduces another new question about navigating the city. While all topics are broadly related to travel, Speaker A's tendency to jump between sub-topics without allowing Speaker B to fully develop their thoughts leads to a lack of overall topic coherence and a somewhat disjointed conversation flow. The \"But\" in Speaker A's last turn explicitly signals a shift away from what Speaker B was about to discuss.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe most notable issue in interactional fluency is the extended overlap/interruption by Speaker A at `[00:11 - 00:19]`. Speaker A explicitly says \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which confirms that Speaker A cut off Speaker B before B had finished their thought. This is a prolonged interruption where Speaker A takes over the turn and asks a new question. This is considered a harmful interactional practice that disrupts the natural flow. There are no noticeable long pauses between turns. Despite Speaker A's apology, the sustained nature of the interruption significantly impacts fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--98246",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I'm so sorry to hear that. How are you feeling?\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: I'm feeling okay, I guess. It's hard to process everything, but I'm trying to stay focused on\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: Positive, right? That's the spirit. You're going to beat this, I know it.\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker B: Thank you, Ali. That means a lot coming from you.\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker A: Of course! What can I do to help you? Anything at all, just name it and I'll make sure\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker B: Honestly, just being here for me is enough, thank you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n*   **Speaker A's initial empathy and question:** \"I'm so sorry to hear that. How are you feeling?\" (00:00 - 00:03) is directly addressed by Speaker B.\n*   **Speaker B's response:** \"I'm feeling okay, I guess. It's hard to process everything, but I'm trying to stay focused on\" (00:03 - 00:08) directly answers the question and sets up the next turn.\n*   **Speaker A's completion of thought and encouragement:** \"Positive, right? That's the spirit. You're going to beat this, I know it.\" (00:08 - 00:13) logically follows Speaker B's unfinished sentence and offers relevant support. This shows active listening and engagement.\n*   **Speaker B's gratitude:** \"Thank you, Ali. That means a lot coming from you.\" (00:13 - 00:16) is a perfectly relevant response to the encouragement received.\n*   **Speaker A's offer of help:** \"Of course! What can I do to help you? Anything at all, just name it and I'll make sure\" (00:16 - 00:23) is a natural continuation of the supportive theme.\n*   **Speaker B's polite decline and appreciation:** \"Honestly, just being here for me is enough, thank you.\" (00:22 - 00:24) directly answers Speaker A's offer.\n\nThe conversation maintains a consistent topic (Speaker B's situation and Speaker A's support) and flows logically without any abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates good fluency with natural turn-taking.\n*   There are no long pauses between turns. Each speaker picks up their turn promptly.\n*   One overlap is detected: Speaker B starts speaking at [00:22] while Speaker A finishes at [00:23]. This creates a 1-second overlap. However, this is a brief overlap where Speaker B is likely anticipating the end of Speaker A's offer (\"...and I'll make sure\") and responding as soon as the intent is clear. This type of brief, anticipatory overlap is common in natural conversation and indicates active listening rather than disruption. It does not appear to be a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlapping turn as defined by the criteria. It enhances the naturalness and responsiveness of the dialogue.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking contribute to a natural and fluent conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--45436",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, Sheridan. I wanted to talk to you about the project you've been working on.\n[00:03 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but is there something specific you wanted to address about the project? I'm curious if there's anything that needs immediate attention.\n[00:11 - 00:22] Speaker A: Actually, I just wanted to say that I'm really impressed with how dedicated and hardworking you've been. You've done an incredible job, and I just wanted to thank you for your contribution.\n[00:23 - 00:25] Speaker B: Thank you, Effie. I appreciate that.\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker A: No problem. I just wanted to let you know that I think you're doing a great job, and\n[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker B: Oh, before you finish, is there any feedback on areas I could improve? I want to make sure I'm covering all bases.\n[00:37 - 00:43] Speaker A: Honestly, I think you're doing a great job overall, but if anything comes up, I'll definitely let you know.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial interruption at [00:03 - 00:11] is to seek clarification on Speaker A's intent, which is a highly logical and relevant response to \"I wanted to talk to you about the project.\" Speaker A then directly addresses this by stating their positive intent. Later, Speaker B's question about areas for improvement at [00:30 - 00:36] is also relevant within the context of receiving positive feedback about performance, demonstrating proactivity. Speaker A's final response at [00:37 - 00:43] directly answers B's question. All turns are coherent and contribute meaningfully to the conversation's flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two instances of brief overlaps, both initiated by Speaker B ([00:03 - 00:11] and [00:30 - 00:36]). In both cases, Speaker B acknowledges the overlap with phrases like \"Sorry to jump in\" and \"Oh, before you finish,\" which makes these brief overlaps sound natural, polite, and not at all disruptive or prolonged. They are used effectively to manage the turn-taking and clarify intentions. There are no long or awkward pauses detected; the 1-second pauses are natural and brief, allowing for smooth transitions between speakers.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--679",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I can't imagine a life without cooking! Have you tried a recipe that you've\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Actually, I just started on one. I've been reading about it online. It's really fun.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: That's great! What type of recipe are you planning to\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: It's an omelet with bacon, cheddar, and cheese.\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker A: Yum! I always make variations of my favorite omelet. Usually I just throw in lots of veggies and use goat cheese.\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker B: You really love omelets. I'm excited to try it out myself. By the way, what type of recipe were you asking about earlier?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly relates to the preceding statement, maintaining a clear and coherent topic flow about cooking and recipes.\n- Speaker B's initial response about starting a recipe directly answers Speaker A's prompt.\n- Speaker A's follow-up question about the recipe type is logical.\n- Speaker B's description of the omelet is a direct answer.\n- Speaker A's comment on omelet variations is a relevant continuation of the shared topic.\n- Speaker B's final turn acknowledges Speaker A's point and then circles back to clarify Speaker A's initial question, showing good engagement and topic management rather than an abrupt shift. The conversation stays consistently centered on the topic of recipes and cooking throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is generally good. There are no noticeable long pauses between speaker turns that would disrupt the flow of conversation. There is one brief overlap:\n- `[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: That's great! What type of recipe are you planning to`\n- `[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: It's an omelet with bacon, cheddar, and cheese.`\nSpeaker B begins speaking at 00:11 while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence at 00:12. This is a very brief overlap (approximately 1 second) where Speaker B anticipates the end of Speaker A's question. As per the instructions, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" this overlap does not impede understanding or naturalness and is common in dynamic, natural conversation. It does not qualify as a \"prolonged\" or \"extended\" overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--220",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Excuse me. In this museum, you are not supposed to take pictures.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Is that right? I didn't know that photography\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sorry, but we have to follow the rules. Will you give me your camera? We have to confiscate your film.\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker B: Will you forgive me. Could you return my camera after you've\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker A: We'll keep it for now and return it later. But don't worry, you can still buy slides and picture postcards somewhere in the museum.\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker B: Oh, I see. Thanks for letting me know. Where exactly can I find those slides and postcards?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining a clear topic coherence throughout the conversation.\n- Speaker A initiates the conversation by stating a rule violation, which is a direct and relevant opening.\n- Speaker B's initial response, \"Is that right? I didn't know that photography,\" expresses surprise and ignorance of the rule, which is a natural and relevant reaction.\n- Speaker A then follows up by reinforcing the rule and stating the consequence (\"confiscate your film\"), directly addressing B's implied query.\n- Speaker B attempts to mitigate the situation (\"Will you forgive me. Could you return my camera after you've\"), which is a relevant plea given the circumstances.\n- Speaker A responds by clarifying the procedure for the camera and offering an alternative solution (buying slides/postcards), showing a practical and relevant approach to the situation.\n- Finally, Speaker B acknowledges the information and asks for further clarification on the alternative, maintaining relevance and indicating understanding.\nThere are no off-topic remarks or illogical jumps in the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is also very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns that would disrupt the flow of conversation. There are brief overlaps detected:\n- At [00:06], Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. Speaker B says \"photography\" and Speaker A starts with \"Sorry, but we have to follow the rules.\" This overlap lasts for about 1 second ([00:06 - 00:07]).\n- At [00:15], Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. Speaker B says \"after you've\" and Speaker A starts with \"We'll keep it for now and return it later.\" This overlap also lasts for about 1 second ([00:15 - 00:16]).\nAccording to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" Both observed overlaps are brief (around 1 second) and do not hinder comprehension or make the conversation feel unnatural or aggressive. In the context of Speaker A being an authority figure enforcing a rule, these brief interjections can even convey firmness without being detrimental to fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--371",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Excuse me, do you have any English songs?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yes, we do. They are all in this section over\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: Oh, before I forget, do you have any recommendations for a good warm-up song?\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: Sure, I can suggest a few, but as I was saying, the English songs are all in this book.\n[00:16 - 00:17] Speaker A: Great, thanks.\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B: No problem. Just give us a few minutes more to pull them up, though. We don't get that many English singers!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:** The responses are logically consistent and maintain topic coherence, especially from Speaker B. Speaker A initiates a clear query about English songs, which Speaker B addresses directly. Speaker A then introduces a new, albeit related, topic about warm-up songs. Speaker B handles this topic shift skillfully by first acknowledging the new request (\"Sure, I can suggest a few\") and then attempting to redirect back to the original topic (\"but as I was saying, the English songs are all in this book\"). This demonstrates excellent conversational management, ensuring logical consistency and coherence are maintained despite a slight digression. Speaker A's subsequent \"Great, thanks\" is a little ambiguous, but Speaker B interprets it as an acceptance to proceed with the original topic of English songs, further reinforcing coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:** The dialogue exhibits good interactional fluency. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; all inter-turn pauses are brief (1 second), which is natural for conversation. There is one instance of an overlapping turn between Speaker B (0:03-0:06) and Speaker A (0:05-0:10). Speaker A begins their turn at 0:05 while Speaker B is still speaking, resulting in a 1-second overlap. While the instructions state that \"overlapping turns are harmful,\" they also distinguish between \"brief overlaps\" (acceptable) and \"extended overlaps\" (to be detected). A 1-second overlap is brief and does not constitute an extended or prolonged overlap. In natural conversation, such brief overlaps, especially when a speaker remembers something (\"Oh, before I forget\"), are common and do not significantly impede the flow or understanding of the dialogue. Speaker B's ability to seamlessly transition from being interrupted back to their original point further highlights that the fluency was not significantly harmed.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--426",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I don't know how much longer I'll be here. What places would you recommend?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: So, what types of things do you like to do?\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Well, I like to eat a lot. I love to take photos, go for walks in the parks.\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: Oh, okay. If you had to pick one thing to do here, what would it be? Would\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I just thought of another question. Are there any good local restaurants you recommend?\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker B: Definitely! There are some amazing places to eat around here. But you mentioned the Grand Canyon earlier. You'd really enjoy it.\n[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker A: That's great! Do you think I could see it today? I don't mind traveling long distances.\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker B: Yeah! I could take you there. But before we plan the trip, let me finish telling you about those restaurants.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in Response Relevance, primarily stemming from Speaker B.\n- **[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker B's turn:** Speaker B introduces a major logical inconsistency by stating, \"But you mentioned the Grand Canyon earlier.\" Speaker A never mentioned the Grand Canyon in the preceding dialogue. This is a factual error that severely breaks topic coherence and logical consistency.\n- **[00:23 - 00:30] and [00:37 - 00:42] Topic Incoherence:** Speaker B bounces between topics. After Speaker A asks about restaurants, Speaker B acknowledges it but then abruptly shifts to the non-existent Grand Canyon mention. Then, in the final turn, Speaker B shifts back to the restaurants after discussing the Grand Canyon. This back-and-forth, combined with the false premise, makes the conversation feel disjointed and unnatural.\n- **Speaker A's attempts at coherence:** Speaker A tries to maintain coherence by responding to Speaker B's non-sequitur about the Grand Canyon ([00:31 - 00:36]), but the underlying issue of Speaker B's relevance failures is prominent.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with only minor, acceptable instances.\n- **Pauses:** All pauses between turns are 1 second long (e.g., [00:06 - 00:07], [00:12 - 00:13], [00:30 - 00:31], [00:36 - 00:37]). These are considered \"small pauses\" and are acceptable, not \"long pauses\" that disrupt the flow.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap at [00:16 - 00:17] where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing. This overlap is only 1 second. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates it was an intentional, brief interjection rather than an extended or problematic overlapping turn. Given the explicit acknowledgment and its short duration, this falls under \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\" and does not constitute a \"prolonged overlapping turn\" that would be harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--31145",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: So, did you have any trouble with the faucet before it stopped working?\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: Yes, I did. It would drip occasionally, and then it started making a strange noise that\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: Noise? That could be a sign of a bigger issue. Did you try to fix it yourself or did you call a plumber?\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: I tried to fix it myself, but I couldn't figure out what was wrong. So I called a plumber.\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker A: And what did the plumber say was wrong with it?\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker B: He said that the washer was worn out and needed to be replaced as\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: Replaced? That's pretty common. Did he give you any tips on how to avoid future problems?\n[00:30 - 00:37] Speaker B: Yes, he said that I should make sure to turn the water off completely when I'm not using the faucet, and also to check the washers every few months.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each turn builds logically on the previous one, maintaining a clear topic coherence around the malfunctioning faucet.\n- Speaker A initiates with a relevant question about the faucet's prior issues.\n- Speaker B provides a direct and detailed answer, mentioning \"drip occasionally\" and \"strange noise.\"\n- Speaker A picks up on \"noise,\" indicating active listening, and asks follow-up questions about attempts to fix it. This shows logical progression from symptom to action.\n- Speaker B responds directly about trying to fix it and calling a plumber.\n- Speaker A then logically asks what the plumber diagnosed.\n- Speaker B provides the specific diagnosis (\"washer was worn out\").\n- Speaker A acknowledges this as \"common\" and asks about preventive tips, showing a natural progression from problem to solution/prevention.\n- Speaker B provides clear and relevant tips.\nThere are no instances of topic drift, irrelevant responses, or logical inconsistencies. The conversation flows very smoothly and coherently.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, reflecting a natural conversation.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps:\n    - [00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A interjects \"Noise?\" while Speaker B is still speaking at [00:03 - 00:08]. This is a very short, almost immediate interjection (around 1 second overlap) where Speaker A is actively engaging with B's last word, indicating active listening and eager follow-up rather than a disruptive takeover.\n    - [00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A interjects \"Replaced?\" while Speaker B is still speaking at [00:21 - 00:24]. Again, this is a very brief overlap (less than 1 second) that acts as an immediate acknowledgment and transition, not a prolonged interruption.\n    These are precisely the \"brief overlaps\" that are deemed acceptable and even natural in conversation, not \"prolonged overlapping turns.\"\n- **Pauses:** There are two small pauses:\n    - [00:13 - 00:14]: A 1-second pause between Speaker A's question and Speaker B's answer.\n    - [00:29 - 00:30]: A 1-second pause between Speaker A's question and Speaker B's answer.\n    These are \"small pauses\" and are perfectly acceptable, allowing for processing and turn-taking without disrupting the flow.\nThere are no \"long pauses\" or \"extended overlaps\" that would hinder the conversation's natural rhythm. The pacing feels appropriate and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--461",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: How are you doing?\n[00:01 - 00:06] Speaker B: Not bad! So, I've been thinking about what to do with my retirement fund. Do you have any advice?\n[00:06 - 00:18] Speaker A: I'm actually not too familiar with how retirement funds work. But I know you're having a lot of student loan debt to pay off, so I would recommend putting some money into a Roth IRA.\n[00:18 - 00:19] Speaker B: What's a Roth IRA?\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker A: It's a special kind of account that you can put your retirement savings into. You can withdraw the money without tax consequences when you reach retirement\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker B: Wait, are there any restrictions on when you can withdraw the money without penalties?\n[00:33 - 00:43] Speaker A: Yes, you have to be at least 59½ years old and have held the account for at least five years. However, I haven't mentioned how much you should contribute yet to maximize\n[00:42 - 00:46] Speaker B: Really? That sounds like a great idea. How much would you recommend putting into it?\n[00:47 - 00:56] Speaker A: I'd recommend contributing at least $5500 a year if you're young and have a good job. This would get you started on your retirement savings.\n[00:56 - 00:59] Speaker B: Great! Do you have any other advice for a newbie like me?\n[01:00 - 01:10] Speaker A: My advice would be to invest your money in stock index funds. These are funds that invest your money in a variety of stocks, and they have higher long-term returns than many other\n[01:09 - 01:13] Speaker B: Oh, I've heard about those! But aren't they also riskier compared to other funds?\n[01:14 - 01:23] Speaker A: They can be riskier in the short term, but over the long term, they tend to perform better. It's important to diversify your investments to manage risk.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance throughout.\n*   **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B's initial query about retirement funds sets the stage, and Speaker A's advice on Roth IRAs, subsequent explanations, and further advice on index funds all build coherently on the established topic. Speaker B's questions (\"What's a Roth IRA?\", \"are there any restrictions?\", \"How much would you recommend?\", \"aren't they also riskier?\") are direct, relevant follow-ups that show active listening and engagement. Speaker A's responses directly address these questions, providing clear and consistent information.\n*   **Topic Coherence:** The conversation maintains a singular focus on financial advice, specifically regarding retirement savings and investment strategies. There are no sudden topic shifts or irrelevant digressions. The flow from general advice to specific financial instruments (Roth IRA, stock index funds) and then to details like contributions, withdrawal rules, and risk management demonstrates excellent topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There are a couple of brief overlaps (e.g., [00:42 - 00:46] Speaker B starts while A is finishing at [00:33 - 00:43], and [01:09 - 01:13] Speaker B starts while A is finishing at [01:00 - 01:10]). In both cases, the overlap is only 1 second. As per the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" These overlaps do not appear disruptive or prolonged; rather, they suggest natural, enthusiastic turn-taking.\n*   **Long Pauses:** There are small pauses (1 second) between some turns (e.g., [00:46] to [00:47], [00:59] to [01:00], [01:13] to [01:14]). These are well within the acceptable range for natural conversation and do not indicate hesitation, disengagement, or difficulty in the flow of the dialogue.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking feel natural and smooth, contributing to an impression of a fluid conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--413",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Catherine, have you ever seen the movie Fast Food Nation?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Yes, I remember it was inspired by a New York Times best-seller of the same name.\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker A: It's very thought-provoking, isn't it?\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker B: Exactly. It reveals the dark side of the all-American fast food\n[00:14 - 00:22] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say \"dark side,\" are you referring to the health issues or the labor practices highlighted in the movie?\n[00:22 - 00:31] Speaker B: Both, actually. The film touches on the exploitation of workers and the unhealthy nature of fast food. So what do you think of the American fast food culture?\n[00:31 - 00:41] Speaker A: I think America really deserves the name of fast food nation - as people can find McDonald's, KFC and Pizza Hut almost all over the States.\n[00:41 - 00:45] Speaker B: And everyone knows that Americans' favorite food is the hamburger, isn't it?\n[00:45 - 00:53] Speaker A: Sure. You see, Tom, fast food is a lifestyle that craves convenience. People just don't care whether it is healthy or not.\n[00:53 - 00:58] Speaker B: But I think some healthy menu options are also served at fast food restaurants like salads\n[00:57 - 01:06] Speaker A: Oh, you mean like salads and fruit cups? But I was going to mention that even with those options, the majority still prefer the less healthy choices.\n[01:06 - 01:12] Speaker B: Right, but what about the healthier options you mentioned earlier? Like fat-free milk and whole-wheat rolls?\n[01:12 - 01:19] Speaker A: Yes, exactly. Such as fat-free milk, whole-wheat rolls, and fish sandwiches. They're much better.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong topic coherence and logical consistency for the most part. Speakers A and B engage in a natural discussion about the \"Fast Food Nation\" movie and the broader American fast food culture. Each turn builds on the previous one, with questions being answered and points elaborated upon (e.g., A asking for clarification on \"dark side,\" B answering and then pivoting to a new question).\n\nHowever, there is a minor break in logical consistency in the final two turns. At [01:06 - 01:12], Speaker B asks, \"Right, but what about the healthier options *you mentioned earlier*? Like fat-free milk and whole-wheat rolls?\" Speaker A had not mentioned these specific items earlier in the conversation; Speaker B was the one who initially brought up \"healthy menu options... like salads\" [00:53 - 00:58], and A then mentioned \"salads and fruit cups\" as examples of B's point. Speaker A's response, \"Yes, exactly. Such as fat-free milk, whole-wheat rolls, and fish sandwiches. They're much better,\" [01:12 - 01:19] confirms this misattribution, either by implicitly accepting that they *had* mentioned them or by reinterpreting B's question as a general request for more examples. While not a significant derailment of the conversation, this inaccuracy in conversational recall slightly detracts from perfect logical consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural back-and-forth flow. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  [00:14 - 00:22] Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B for one second ([00:14] while B is still speaking at [00:15]). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this by saying \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and keeps the interaction polite and natural despite the overlap. This is a common occurrence in natural conversation, often for clarification.\n2.  [00:57 - 01:06] Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B for one second ([00:57] while B is still speaking at [00:58]). This overlap appears to be Speaker A eagerly clarifying or confirming Speaker B's point (\"Oh, you mean like salads and fruit cups?\").\n\nBoth overlaps are very brief (1 second) and do not impede comprehension or the flow of the conversation. They are more indicative of engaged and natural dialogue rather than disruptive extended overlaps. Overall, the conversation feels smooth and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--89229",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I'm so sorry, I tried my best.\n[00:02 - 00:09] Speaker B: Neda, I'm sorry to say this, but you are the last one in your class. You didn't make the top ten,\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: But I tried so hard. I don't understand why I'm the last one.\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker B: Neda, sometimes people just aren't meant to be first. You did your best and that's all that anyone can\n[00:17 - 00:20] Speaker A: But it feels like my best wasn't good enough.\n[00:20 - 00:30] Speaker B: I understand your frustration, Neda, but you have to remember that everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. Just because you're not first doesn't mean you're not special in your own way.\n[00:30 - 00:32] Speaker A: But it still hurts to be last.\n[00:33 - 00:45] Speaker B: I know it does, Neda, but you have to remember that you're not alone. There are other people in the world who feel the same way as you do. And one day, maybe you'll be first for something else. Just keep trying your best and never give up on yourself.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement, maintaining a clear topic coherence around Speaker A's disappointment with their performance and Speaker B's attempts to provide comfort and perspective.\n\n*   Speaker A's initial \"I'm so sorry, I tried my best\" sets the emotional tone, which Speaker B immediately validates and explains (\"you are the last one in your class\").\n*   Speaker A's \"But I tried so hard. I don't understand why I'm the last one\" is a direct and logical follow-up, expressing disbelief and frustration in response to the news.\n*   Speaker B's subsequent responses (\"sometimes people just aren't meant to be first,\" \"I understand your frustration,\" \"I know it does\") consistently attempt to console Speaker A, acknowledge their feelings, and offer different angles of support (acceptance, individual strengths, shared experience, future hope).\n*   Speaker A's recurring \"But it feels like my best wasn't good enough\" and \"But it still hurts to be last\" show a persistent emotional state, which Speaker B continually addresses with empathy and encouragement.\n\nThere are no instances of the speakers talking past each other, changing the subject abruptly, or providing nonsensical replies. The conversation develops organically and logically, driven by Speaker A's emotional distress and Speaker B's supportive role.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n*   **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The conversation flows continuously, indicating a natural and engaged exchange.\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps identified (00:08-00:09 and 00:17-00:18), both lasting approximately 1 second. These are very short and appear to be natural instances of turn-taking in an emotionally charged conversation, where Speaker A might be eager to express their feelings or react to Speaker B's statement. They do not constitute \"prolonged overlaps\" that would hinder understanding or disrupt the flow. In fact, such brief overlaps often add to the naturalness and spontaneity of human conversation, especially when emotions are involved. They indicate active listening and engagement rather than disfluency.\nGiven the criteria, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" these brief overlaps fall squarely into the acceptable category and do not negatively impact the fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--19326",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Thank you so much for your purchase! I'm glad you liked the item. I\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but I just wanted to ask—do you have any similar items coming up in future auctions?\n[00:09 - 00:20] Speaker A: Actually, I do have a few pieces that might interest you. I put a lot of work into making sure each item is perfect for the auction, just like the one you bought. They're all\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B: Well, it paid off! I'm very happy with my purchase.\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker A: I'm glad to hear that. If you ever need anything else, please don't hesitate to contact me.\n[00:28 - 00:30] Speaker B: I will definitely keep you in mind. Thanks again!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining a coherent topic about the purchased item and future potential purchases.\n- Speaker B's question about similar items directly follows Speaker A's initial thanks and positive feedback.\n- Speaker A's detailed response directly addresses Speaker B's question and elaborates on their work quality.\n- Speaker B's \"Well, it paid off!\" is a direct, positive affirmation in response to Speaker A's statement about putting effort into items.\n- The closing remarks are standard and appropriate, reinforcing the positive customer-seller interaction.\nThe conversation flows naturally and purposefully, with no irrelevant tangents or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are two brief overlaps detected: `[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B:` overlaps `[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A:` by one second (0:03-0:04). Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes it feel natural and polite.\n- The second overlap is `[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B:` overlapping `[00:09 - 00:20] Speaker A:` by one second (0:19-0:20). This is a brief, supportive interjection (\"Well, it paid off!\") that fits naturally as Speaker A is explaining their work.\nBoth overlaps are brief (1 second) and either acknowledged or serve as natural, quick interjections, which aligns with the criteria that \"brief overlaps...are acceptable.\"\n- The pauses between turns are also brief (1 second between B's \"happy with purchase\" and A's \"glad to hear that\", and 1 second between A's \"contact me\" and B's \"I will definitely keep you in mind\"). These short pauses are natural and do not hinder the flow of conversation.\nThere are no prolonged pauses or extended overlapping turns, indicating a smooth and natural conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--254",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hi honey! You'll never guess what! My friends Julie and Alex are getting married!\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: Wow that's great news! They're a great couple!\n[00:08 - 00:21] Speaker A: I know! Anyways I just talked to Alex's best man and he is organizing the bachelor party. It's gonna be so much fun! All the groomsmen are thinking up all the wacky and crazy things we are going to do, like\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: You aren't going to a strip club, are you? I don't want you getting a lap dance from some stripper with the excuse that it's your friend's party.\n[00:27 - 00:46] Speaker A: Aw come on! It's just some innocent fun! You know how these things are! We are gonna play drinking games, get him some gag gifts and just have a good time. Nothing too over the top. Actually, I was about to say we haven't even planned any strip club visits. It's more about just having a good time together.\n[00:46 - 00:48] Speaker B: Well, I don't know.\n[00:48 - 00:53] Speaker A: Come on! If one of your friends was getting married I wouldn't mind you going to her bachelorette party!\n[00:54 - 01:04] Speaker B: Good, because my friend Wendy is getting married and I'm organizing her party! By the way, what other ideas did you guys come up with for Alex's party? You mentioned wacky and crazy things earlier but didn't finish.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B's initial reaction to the marriage news is appropriate. Speaker B's interjection about the strip club directly addresses Speaker A's mention of \"wacky and crazy things.\" Speaker A's subsequent explanation clarifies the plans and addresses B's concern. Speaker B's \"Well, I don't know\" indicates continued doubt, which Speaker A attempts to overcome with a reciprocal argument. Finally, Speaker B's revelation about Wendy's wedding is a clever, consistent twist on A's hypothetical, and the follow-up question perfectly brings the conversation back to A's unfinished thought.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The conversation maintains a clear focus on the upcoming weddings and bachelor/bachelorette parties. While there's a specific digression into the nature of the bachelor party activities, it's a coherent and natural development of the initial topic. Speaker B effectively circles back to an earlier part of the conversation (\"You mentioned wacky and crazy things earlier but didn't finish\"), demonstrating strong topic management and memory, ensuring the conversation remains cohesive. There are no irrelevant turns or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There are no extended overlaps in the conversation. Speaker B interjects at [00:21] while Speaker A is saying \"like,\" which is a brief, natural interruption driven by a strong immediate concern. This is a brief overlap, not a prolonged or harmful one, and it's common in natural conversation.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are smooth and natural, with typical conversational pacing. For example, the pause at [00:04 - 00:05] and [00:53 - 00:54] are just 1 second, which is a small, acceptable pause and does not disrupt the flow.\nOverall, the dialogue flows very naturally, simulating a real-life conversation between two people.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--104330",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Mrs. King, I'm finished my presentation on explorers.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: Wonderful! Let's take a look.\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Pizarro was an explorer from Spain who conquered the Inca empire in South America, which\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, Lucas, but I just realized—did you include any details about how Pizarro's conquest impacted the indigenous people?\n[00:18 - 00:28] Speaker A: Oh, yes, I did mention that later in the presentation. But before I got to that, I was explaining how he managed to conquer the empire with such a small force.\n[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker B: That's great to hear. It's important to cover both the achievements and the consequences.\n[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker A: Yeah, I tried to make it as informative as possible.\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker B: I can tell. You did a great job researching and writing about different explorers.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence.\n- Speaker A introduces the finished presentation, and Speaker B responds with an encouraging \"Wonderful! Let's take a look,\" which is a perfectly relevant next step.\n- Speaker A then begins the presentation, and Speaker B's interjection at [00:11] is highly relevant. It's a teacher's critical question about the ethical implications of a historical figure's actions, showing active engagement with the content.\n- Speaker A's response at [00:18] directly addresses Speaker B's question, clarifying that the information is included later, maintaining logical flow.\n- Speaker B's subsequent affirmation at [00:28] reinforces the importance of the discussed aspect, and Speaker A's \"Yeah, I tried to make it as informative as possible\" at [00:33] aligns with Speaker B's feedback.\n- Finally, Speaker B's concluding positive feedback at [00:37] is a direct and relevant summary of their assessment of the presentation's quality.\nThere are no instances of misunderstanding, irrelevant tangents, or logical inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is also excellent.\n- The only extended overlap occurs at [00:11 - 00:12] where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This is a brief, 1-second overlap. Crucially, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this by saying, \"Sorry to jump in, Lucas,\" which makes the interjection natural and polite rather than disruptive. This kind of brief, acknowledged overlap is common in spontaneous conversation, especially when someone has an immediate thought or question.\n- There are no long pauses indicated in the timestamps between speaker turns. The dialogue flows smoothly, reflecting a natural conversation pace.\nSmall pauses and brief overlaps are acceptable, and in this case, the single brief overlap is handled well and does not harm the fluency; it actually enhances the naturalness of the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--38568",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Louie. Do you need any help with your work?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yeah, actually. I could use some help organizing\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Before you continue, is this something urgent? I just need to know if I should wrap up what I'm doing first.\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: No worries, it's not super urgent, but I could use some help with a few things.\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker A: Okay, what do you need me to do?\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker B: Well, first I need you to grab that hammer over there, and\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker A: Oh, the one on the bench or the one near the toolbox?\n[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker B: The one near the toolbox. Thanks! Then I need you to hold this piece of wood while I nail it down.\n[00:31 - 00:32] Speaker A: Sure thing.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency.\n- **Turn 1 (A) & Turn 2 (B):** Speaker A offers help, and Speaker B accepts and specifies the nature of the help needed (\"organizing\"). This is a direct and relevant response.\n- **Turn 3 (A) & Turn 4 (B):** Speaker A logically follows up by asking about urgency, which is a sensible question before committing to help. Speaker B provides a clear and direct answer, confirming it's not super urgent but still needed.\n- **Turn 5 (A) & Turn 6 (B):** Speaker A asks for specific instructions, and Speaker B immediately provides the first step.\n- **Turn 7 (A) & Turn 8 (B):** Speaker A's interjection \"Oh, the one on the bench or the one near the toolbox?\" is a highly relevant and efficient clarifying question, demonstrating active listening and a desire to perform the task correctly. Speaker B directly answers the clarification and then continues with the instructions, maintaining topic coherence.\n- **Turn 9 (A):** Speaker A's \"Sure thing\" is a natural and cooperative confirmation.\nThe conversation flows logically, and each turn builds upon the previous one without any non-sequiturs or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- **Pauses:** There are small pauses (typically 1 second) between turns, such as between [00:02] and [00:03], [00:12] and [00:13], [00:17] and [00:18], and [00:25] and [00:26]. These pauses are brief and natural, allowing for processing and turn-taking without feeling disruptive or prolonged.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap:\n    - [00:20 - 00:23] Speaker B: Well, first I need you to grab that hammer over there, and\n    - [00:22 - 00:25] Speaker A: Oh, the one on the bench or the one near the toolbox?\n    This overlap occurs when Speaker A interjects to clarify \"the hammer\" while Speaker B is still speaking. This is a 1-second overlap that serves a functional purpose (clarification) and feels natural in a collaborative task-oriented conversation. It is a \"brief overlap\" as described in the criteria as acceptable, rather than a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" one. It aids efficiency by getting a clarification in real-time.\nOverall, the pacing is natural, and there are no instances of long, awkward pauses or disruptive, prolonged overlapping turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--12495",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, how are you doing today?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm doing alright, thanks for asking. How about you?\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: I'm doing well too. I just got back from volunteering at the soup kitchen and I feel really grateful for\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker B: Oh, that's wonderful! How was your experience there? Did you find it fulfilling?\n[00:16 - 00:28] Speaker A: Yes, it was definitely fulfilling. I just felt like I wanted to help out in any way that I could. There are a lot of people who are less fortunate than me and I wanted to try and make a difference in their lives.\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker B: That's really admirable of you. I'm sure they appreciate everything you do for them.\n[00:33 - 00:41] Speaker A: Yeah, I hope so. It feels good to be able to help out and know that I'm making a difference, even if it's just a small one.\n[00:41 - 00:47] Speaker B: I'm sure you are. Well, I should get going, but before I leave, do you think you'll continue volunteering there regularly?\n[00:48 - 00:51] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm planning to. It was nice talking to you!\n[00:52 - 00:53] Speaker B: Same here. Have a great day!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker A and Speaker B consistently respond in a logically consistent manner, building upon each other's statements. The topic of volunteering at the soup kitchen is introduced by Speaker A and then explored collaboratively, with Speaker B asking relevant follow-up questions and Speaker A providing coherent details and reflections. There are no instances of topic deviation or illogical replies. Each turn directly addresses or expands on the previous one, leading to a natural and coherent conversation flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n1.  **Extended overlaps:** There is one overlap identified: `[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker B:` starts while `[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A:` is still speaking. This is a 1-second overlap. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" A 1-second overlap is very brief and often indicates active listening or an eager, but not disruptive, interjection in natural conversation. It does not appear to cause any loss of information or disruption to the flow.\n2.  **Long pauses:** All pauses between turns are consistently 1 second (e.g., between Speaker B's first turn and Speaker A's second, or Speaker A's second and Speaker B's first overlap). These are considered \"small pauses\" and are perfectly acceptable, contributing to a natural conversational rhythm rather than hindering it. There are no \"prolonged pauses\" that would indicate hesitation or a breakdown in the interaction.\nOverall, the pacing is natural, and the brief overlap and short pauses contribute to a realistic and fluent conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--123",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Did you work in a charity organization?\n[00:02 - 00:12] Speaker B: Yeah, I had been in the charity organization for 2 months and I learned a lot from that experience, including love, sympathy, equality, and the value\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but when you mention equality, do you mean in terms of how you interacted with people from different backgrounds?\n[00:19 - 00:31] Speaker B: Exactly, interacting with people from various backgrounds made me realize the importance of treating everyone equally. But I also learned to look at people and things from an overall perspective, which had a direct impact on my way of thinking.\n[00:32 - 00:40] Speaker A: That's interesting. You mentioned earlier that you learned about love and sympathy as well. Could you elaborate on how those aspects influenced your mindset?\n[00:41 - 00:49] Speaker B: Sure, love and sympathy taught me to be more empathetic and understanding towards others, which in turn made me less likely to be edgy or judgmental.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial response directly answers Speaker A's question and introduces key themes.\n- Speaker A's subsequent interruption to clarify \"equality\" is a logical follow-up on a specific point raised by Speaker B, showing active listening and engagement.\n- Speaker B then directly confirms and elaborates on the concept of equality, before transitioning smoothly to another related learning point.\n- Speaker A then skillfully redirects the conversation back to \"love and sympathy,\" which Speaker B had initially mentioned but hadn't fully elaborated on. This demonstrates good conversational memory and a desire to explore all the initial points.\n- Speaker B's final response directly answers Speaker A's question about love and sympathy, providing a clear explanation.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant tangents, misunderstandings, or abrupt topic shifts. The conversation flows naturally and purposefully.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- **Overlaps**: There is one overlap identified: Speaker A's turn `[00:10 - 00:18]` overlaps with Speaker B's turn `[00:02 - 00:12]` by 2 seconds. However, Speaker A explicitly states, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and politeness. This type of brief, acknowledged interruption for clarification is a natural and acceptable part of human conversation, especially when trying to pinpoint a specific detail before the speaker moves on. It does not appear to be prolonged or harmful; rather, it facilitates the conversation's flow by allowing immediate clarification.\n- **Pauses**: There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are quick and natural, contributing to a smooth conversational rhythm.\nOverall, the dialogue feels natural, responsive, and easy to follow, with the single overlap being a minor, natural conversational feature rather than a fluency issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--15591",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Mom. I'm really excited to go back to school today.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: I'm sure you are, sweetie. I know you've been cooped up at home with me all summer, and\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Actually, I wanted to ask—do you think I'll be able to join the soccer team this year?\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker B: Oh, of course! I think it's a great idea. But remember, it's important to balance sports with your studies and make sure\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, I know. I just really miss playing with the team. Thanks for understanding, Mom.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's excitement about school. Speaker A then naturally pivots to a related topic (joining the soccer team), which is a common and logical progression for a child's thoughts about school. Speaker B's response to the soccer question is entirely relevant, offering both approval and typical parental advice. Speaker A's final remark acknowledges the advice and expresses the underlying motivation, which logically follows and brings the sub-topic to a satisfying close. The conversation maintains strong topic coherence, staying within the realm of \"going back to school\" and associated activities.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two instances of slight overlap:\n1.  Speaker A starts speaking at [00:07] while Speaker B is still speaking until [00:08]. This is a 1-second overlap.\n2.  Speaker A starts speaking at [00:18] exactly when Speaker B finishes at [00:18]. This is a very brief, almost immediate turn-taking.\n\nAccording to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\". These overlaps are indeed brief and sound natural, typical of an eager child interjecting or an immediate response in a close relationship. They do not constitute \"extended overlaps\" that disrupt the flow. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The conversation flows smoothly and naturally.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--107",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Have you ever belonged to a political party?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: No, I haven't, but I thought about joining the green party.\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: Really? I know you are very concerned about the environment. You were a member of the pressure group Greenpeace, weren't you? I\n[00:12 - 00:21] Speaker B: Yes, I was. But I didn't have enough time to devote to it. Speaking of Greenpeace, do you think their approach is more effective than the Green Party's in raising environmental awareness?\n[00:22 - 00:40] Speaker A: That's a good question. I think both have their strengths, but the Green Party can influence legislation directly, whereas Greenpeace often focuses on public campaigns. However, I was going to say earlier that the Green Party has no chance of winning an election because the other parties are too big and popular.\n[00:41 - 00:51] Speaker B: You're right. But smaller political and pressure groups can often influence large political parties. Any member of parliament can propose legislation and parties and pressure groups can raise awareness.\n[00:51 - 00:56] Speaker A: Most people are not very politically aware. They often don't understand the issues fully.\n[00:57 - 01:05] Speaker B: That's true. But it's a little strange because the media often reports on political events. You can read about them in newspaper or hear them on the radio.\n[01:04 - 01:11] Speaker A: TV, yes. But do you think the way the media presents these issues helps or hinders public understanding?\n[01:12 - 01:20] Speaker B: I think it depends on the media outlet. Some are more balanced, while others might have a clear bias, which can definitely affect how people perceive political issues.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the preceding statement, ensuring a coherent conversational flow.\n*   Speaker B's initial response about the Green Party logically follows Speaker A's question about political affiliation.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up about Greenpeace links logically to Speaker B's environmental concern.\n*   Speaker B's question comparing Greenpeace and Green Party effectiveness maintains topic coherence.\n*   Speaker A's explanation of their respective strengths and the Green Party's electoral chances is a relevant response, even incorporating a point Speaker A \"was going to say earlier,\" which indicates a structured thought process.\n*   Speaker B's counter-argument about the influence of smaller groups directly responds to Speaker A's skepticism about the Green Party's chances.\n*   The shift to public political awareness and the media's role is a natural progression, logically connected to the discussion of political parties, influence, and awareness.\nThere are no irrelevant contributions or abrupt topic shifts. The conversation progresses naturally from a specific personal experience to broader societal issues related to politics and media.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that disrupt the conversation's rhythm or indicate communication difficulties.\n*   The overlap at `[00:12 - 00:13]` (Speaker A and B) is brief (1 second) and appears to be a natural co-construction of the turn, where Speaker B might have anticipated Speaker A's completion or Speaker A trailed off. This is common in fluid conversation.\n*   Similarly, the overlap at `[01:04 - 01:05]` (Speaker B and A) is also brief (1 second). Speaker A adds \"TV\" as Speaker B is finishing mentioning \"radio,\" indicating active listening and a natural continuation of the thought, not a disruptive interruption.\n*   The pauses between turns (e.g., 1 second between `[00:05]` and `[00:06]`, `[00:40]` and `[00:41]`, `[00:56]` and `[00:57]`) are consistently brief and natural, allowing for processing without creating awkward silence or hesitation.\nOverall, the turn-taking is smooth and efficient, contributing to a natural and engaging dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--162",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hi, Fanny.\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Hi, Andy.\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker A: Are you feeling OK? You sound a little tired this morning.\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: I did not sleep much last night. I really feel bad. It was a crazy night.\n[00:12 - 00:13] Speaker A: What happened?\n[00:13 - 00:22] Speaker B: I had a bad dream. I was walking alone in the graveyard, and suddenly all the ghosts jumped out of their graves. They began to chase me through the graveyard and shouted that they wanted my soul. It\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker A: Blood? That sounds terrifying! Did you manage to escape in the dream?\n[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker B: My mother woke me up. She had heard me crying out for help.\n[00:30 - 00:31] Speaker A: You have got a great mother.\n[00:32 - 00:38] Speaker B: I felt embarrassed. After all, I am 18 years old. Mom gave me some chocolate cookies and a glass of warm milk\n[00:37 - 00:46] Speaker A: Milk? That sounds comforting. But wait, you mentioned something about being afraid to fall back asleep—was it because of the dream or something else?\n[00:46 - 00:52] Speaker B: Yeah, I was afraid to fall back asleep. I am worrying about getting into the University of Michigan.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A consistently asks relevant follow-up questions (e.g., \"What happened?\", \"Did you manage to escape?\") that prompt Speaker B to elaborate. Speaker A's empathetic responses (e.g., \"You have got a great mother,\" \"That sounds comforting\") maintain the emotional tone and connection. The progression from Speaker B's initial tiredness and bad dream to the underlying anxiety about university admission is very well-managed and feels natural, showing a logical unearthing of the core issue.\n\nThere is one minor point regarding logical consistency: at [00:21 - 00:26], Speaker A interjects with \"Blood?\" while Speaker B is concluding a sentence with \"...soul. It\". This interjection seems disconnected from Speaker B's immediate preceding words. It could be a mishearing, an anticipation of something Speaker B was *going* to say, or a transcription error. However, the rest of Speaker A's turn (\"That sounds terrifying! Did you manage to escape in the dream?\") is perfectly relevant to Speaker B's dream narration. This brief, potentially irrelevant interjection is immediately followed by a highly relevant question, so it doesn't significantly derail the conversation's coherence. Overall, the response relevance is excellent.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses that disrupt the flow of conversation. Two brief overlaps are detected, and both are acceptable according to the criteria.\n1.  **[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker A: Blood? That sounds terrifying! Did you manage to escape in the dream?** This overlaps with Speaker B's \"...soul. It\". While the content of \"Blood?\" is slightly odd in context (as noted in response relevance), the overlap itself is brief and doesn't hinder comprehension or flow. It's more of a content issue than a fluency issue, and even then, Speaker A quickly re-aligns.\n2.  **[00:37 - 00:46] Speaker A: Milk? That sounds comforting. But wait, you mentioned something about being afraid to fall back asleep—was it because of the dream or something else?** This overlaps with Speaker B's \"...warm milk\". This is a very common and natural type of overlap, where Speaker A acknowledges or confirms what Speaker B is saying mid-sentence. It indicates engagement rather than disruption and doesn't impede the conversation.\n\nGiven that the overlaps are brief and the conversation flows without significant pauses, the interactional fluency is excellent.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--82841",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey there. Beautiful day, isn't it?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yeah, it really is. I'm glad I decided to come out here and enjoy it.\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker A: You come here often?\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: Yeah, pretty frequently actually. It's a great way to relax and clear your head.\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: I couldn't agree more. I had a rough day at work and this is exactly what I needed to\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker B: Oh, what happened at work? Was it something specific that made the day rough?\n[00:22 - 00:32] Speaker A: I'm an accountant. It can be pretty stressful at times. But days like today make it all worth it. Sitting here in nature, surrounded by peace and quiet really\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker B: I totally get that. Nature has a way of calming everything down. Do you find it helps you manage the stress from your job?\n[00:38 - 00:43] Speaker A: Absolutely, it really does. And just being able to disconnect for a bit is so refreshing.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one.\n*   Speaker B's initial response (00:02-00:06) directly answers Speaker A's observation.\n*   Speaker A's question \"You come here often?\" (00:06-00:08) is a natural follow-up in a casual conversation.\n*   Speaker B's elaboration on why they come frequently (00:08-00:12) is coherent.\n*   Speaker A's sharing about a \"rough day at work\" (00:13-00:19) is a logical extension of agreeing about finding relaxation.\n*   Speaker B's inquiry about the rough day (00:18-00:21) is a direct and empathetic response to Speaker A's statement.\n*   Speaker A's explanation of being an accountant and finding solace in nature (00:22-00:32) directly answers B's question and elaborates on the initial sentiment.\n*   Speaker B's affirmation and follow-up question about nature helping with stress (00:31-00:37) demonstrates active listening and topic coherence.\n*   Speaker A's final response (00:38-00:43) directly answers B's question.\nThere are no instances of topic shifts or irrelevant responses. The conversation flows very naturally and coherently.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally very good, with natural pacing.\n*   **Pauses:** All pauses between turns are brief (1 second, e.g., 00:01-00:02, 00:12-00:13, 00:21-00:22, 00:37-00:38) and fall well within what is considered natural in a conversational exchange. There are no long, awkward silences.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps:\n    *   [00:18 - 00:19] Speaker B starts while Speaker A is still speaking, resulting in a 1-second overlap. Speaker B cuts off the end of Speaker A's sentence (\"...exactly what I needed to\").\n    *   [00:31 - 00:32] Speaker B starts while Speaker A is still speaking, again a 1-second overlap. Speaker B cuts off the end of Speaker A's sentence (\"...peace and quiet really\").\nWhile these are technically overlaps where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A's final words, they are very brief (1 second) and appear to be more a sign of eager engagement or anticipation rather than prolonged, disruptive overlapping turns. The instructions state, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" These overlaps are brief and do not hinder the comprehension of the dialogue. They contribute to a sense of dynamic, natural conversation rather than indicating a significant issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--19678",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Daddy, what time is it?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: It's a quarter past six.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker A: What does that mean?\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: That means it's six fifteen. The big hand is on the six and the little hand is on the three, which\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker A: Wait, does that mean it's almost time for my favorite show?\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker B: Yes, it does! But let me finish explaining—the little hand is on the three, which means fifteen minutes have passed since six o'clock.\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker A: Oh, I see. So, in fifteen more minutes it will be half past six?\n[00:26 - 00:27] Speaker B: That's right.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn is logically consistent with the previous one, building upon the conversation's core topic of telling time.\n*   Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's initial question (\"What time is it?\") with \"It's a quarter past six.\" (Relevant and consistent).\n*   Speaker A's follow-up \"What does that mean?\" is a logical request for clarification.\n*   Speaker B's explanation of \"quarter past six\" is directly relevant.\n*   Speaker A's interruption \"Wait, does that mean it's almost time for my favorite show?\" is contextually relevant, as it shows the child processing the time information in relation to their own schedule, which is a natural thought process.\n*   Speaker B handles the interruption effectively by first addressing the child's question (\"Yes, it does!\") and then attempting to resume the original explanation (\"But let me finish explaining—\"). This demonstrates good conversational flow and logical progression.\n*   Speaker A's \"Oh, I see. So, in fifteen more minutes it will be half past six?\" shows clear comprehension and logical application of the information, leading to a relevant follow-up question.\n*   Speaker B's final \"That's right\" confirms the child's correct understanding.\nThe topic coherence is maintained throughout, focusing on understanding and interpreting time.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural and appropriate.\n*   There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Most transitions are immediate or involve a natural, brief pause of 1 second (e.g., [00:01]-[00:02], [00:03]-[00:04], [00:13]-[00:14]). These short pauses contribute to a natural conversational rhythm.\n*   One brief overlap occurs: Speaker A starts talking at [00:10] while Speaker B is still speaking until [00:11]. This 1-second overlap is very minor and is characteristic of natural, spontaneous conversation, especially in a parent-child dynamic where a child might eagerly interject. According to the instructions, \"brief overlaps... are acceptable.\" It does not constitute a \"prolonged overlapping turn\" that would be harmful to fluency.\nOverall, the timing of turns, including the brief overlap, makes the dialogue feel very authentic and fluid.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--33522",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Sarah, can I ask you a question?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Sure, what's up?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: You know how my family is really wealthy, right?\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: Yeah, your dad is a big shot CEO and your mom comes from old money. What about it?\n[00:12 - 00:26] Speaker A: Well, I was just wondering... do you ever feel like maybe I'm a little too lucky? Like, everything always seems to go my way and I have so much more than other people. It makes me feel guilty sometimes, like\n[00:25 - 00:34] Speaker B: I totally get that. But before we dive into the guilt part, have you ever thought about how you could use that luck to make a difference? Like, maybe turning that feeling into something positive?\n[00:34 - 00:45] Speaker A: You know, I have thought about that, but it still doesn't make me feel any better when I see homeless people on the street or kids who can't afford to go to college because their families can't afford it.\n[00:46 - 00:54] Speaker B: That's true. But there are also a lot of wealthy people who donate their time and money to helping those in need. Maybe one day you'll be in a position where you can help others too.\n[00:55 - 01:03] Speaker A: Yeah...I hope so. Thanks for talking with me, Sarah. It makes me feel better knowing that someone else understands how I'm feeling.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A introduces a personal concern (guilt about wealth), and Speaker B responds by acknowledging the feeling and offering a constructive perspective (using luck for good). Speaker A then elaborates on their persistent guilt, grounding it in observations of societal inequality, which is a direct and logical follow-up. Speaker B's final response validates Speaker A's feelings while reiterating the idea of future positive action. The conversation flows naturally from personal confession to shared understanding and gentle encouragement. There are no sudden topic shifts or illogical jumps in conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are prompt and natural, simulating real-life conversation. There is one brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at [00:25 - 00:26]. Speaker A's sentence ends with \"like,\" suggesting a trailing off or a slight hesitation, and Speaker B starts speaking at 00:25, while A finishes at 00:26. This is a 1-second overlap, which falls under the category of \"brief overlaps\" explicitly stated as acceptable in the instructions. It does not constitute an \"extended overlap\" that would be harmful to the fluency. Overall, the pacing feels natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--51027",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Excuse me, is your store open?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm sorry, but we're closing early\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: Oh, I thought the sign said \"open.\" Are you sure it's closed right now?\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: Yes, we're closed. That's all right. We'll be open again tomorrow.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent.\n- Speaker A's initial question (\"is your store open?\") is clear.\n- Speaker B's immediate response (\"I'm sorry, but we're closing early\") directly answers the question while providing a reason, demonstrating logical consistency.\n- Speaker A's follow-up (\"Oh, I thought the sign said 'open.' Are you sure it's closed right now?\") acknowledges B's statement, expresses mild confusion based on an observation, and seeks clarification. This is a logical and coherent continuation of the conversation, staying entirely on topic.\n- Speaker B's final reply (\"Yes, we're closed. That's all right. We'll be open again tomorrow.\") provides the requested confirmation and adds helpful information about future availability, maintaining logical flow and topic coherence.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant information, topic shifts, or contradictions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n- **Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's first turn and Speaker B's response ([00:01 - 00:02]), which is a natural and acceptable brief pause. There are no other significant long pauses that would impede the flow of conversation.\n- **Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap between Speaker B and Speaker A from [00:03 - 00:04]. Speaker B is finishing \"closing early\" while Speaker A begins with \"Oh, I thought...\". This type of overlap, where one speaker starts reacting or interjecting just as the previous speaker is finishing their thought, is common in natural, fluid conversations. It is a \"brief overlap\" (1 second) and does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or disruptive overlapping turn. It suggests active listening and quick turn-taking rather than a breakdown in communication. The dialogue flows smoothly, and the overlap does not hinder understanding.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--56087",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what're you up to?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Just getting some laundry done. You?\n[00:03 - 00:15] Speaker A: Oh, nothing much. I was thinking about doing some laundry or cleaning my room, but in the end I decided that it was more important to relax. So I'm just watching TV and taking a little break\n[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but what are you watching? Anything good?\n[00:19 - 00:36] Speaker A: Just a rerun of an old sitcom. It's one of those shows that you can just have on in the background while you unwind. But yeah, sometimes you just need to take a break. Still, don't let yourself get too lazy! Before you know it, your whole place will be a mess and you'll never want to clean it up.\n[00:36 - 00:41] Speaker B: Ha, yeah, I know. I'll try not to let it get too bad. Thanks for the motivation!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or naturally builds upon the previous speaker's utterance.\n- Speaker B's \"Just getting some laundry done. You?\" is a direct and relevant answer to Speaker A's initial query and logically prompts Speaker A's response.\n- Speaker A's detailed explanation of considering chores but choosing relaxation is a coherent answer to \"You?\".\n- Speaker B's \"Sorry to cut in, but what are you watching? Anything good?\" is a relevant follow-up question stemming from Speaker A mentioning watching TV. The \"Sorry to cut in\" is a conversational softener, not an indication of a lack of relevance.\n- Speaker A's detailed description of the TV show and subsequent advice about not getting too lazy is a relevant and natural conversational tangent, linked to the initial topic of relaxation versus chores.\n- Speaker B's final response (\"Ha, yeah, I know. I'll try not to let it get too bad. Thanks for the motivation!\") directly addresses Speaker A's advice and concludes the interaction coherently.\nThe topic flows organically without any abrupt shifts or illogical turns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are no extended overlaps in the conversation. Speaker B's \"Sorry to cut in\" at [00:15 - 00:18] indicates a brief interjection, but the timestamps show it begins precisely when Speaker A's previous turn ends [00:03 - 00:15], suggesting a very natural, almost immediate turn-take, rather than a prolonged simultaneous speech.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The only discernible pause is a 1-second gap between Speaker B's question at [00:18] and Speaker A's answer at [00:19], which is a perfectly natural and acceptable brief pause in conversation. All other transitions are immediate, indicating smooth and dynamic turn-taking.\nThe conversation feels natural, spontaneous, and uninhibited.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--485",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Do you have a favorite musician?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: No, but I listen to a lot of music.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: Which bands do you listen to?\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Oh, a lot of them. This one singer is really popular, but I really like her for her\n[00:10 - 00:11] Speaker A: Who is it?\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker B: Oh, that's such a common name! It's Taylor Swift.\n[00:15 - 00:17] Speaker A: Oh, she's really popular.\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: Yeah, a lot of people I know love her music, but I find it really bland and sometimes too\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker A: Do you like any music from before 2000?\n[00:24 - 00:33] Speaker B: Oh yeah, like the 80s and 90s. I have this one album that I listen to often, it's the soundtrack to the movie The Greatest Showman. I love all the songs on it.\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker A: I don't know that album, but I can see why you like it. What's your favorite song?\n[00:39 - 00:42] Speaker B: Oh, that's hard. I love all the songs. It's hard to pick just one.\n[00:42 - 00:44] Speaker A: Do you think the songs are generic?\n[00:45 - 00:48] Speaker B: No, they're definitely catchy, and the production is really high quality.\n[00:49 - 00:53] Speaker A: I love a good production. It's probably because I'm a musician.\n[00:53 - 01:00] Speaker B: I think your favorite song is probably \"This is Me\". That's a really popular song. It was in the movie The Greatest Showman.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance is generally good throughout most of the dialogue, with speakers engaging with each other's turns and maintaining topic coherence about music. Speaker A's questions logically follow Speaker B's statements, and Speaker B provides relevant answers. For instance, Speaker A asks about bands, and Speaker B names Taylor Swift, then Speaker A probes about older music, and B mentions 80s/90s and The Greatest Showman.\n\nHowever, there is a significant issue in the final turn from Speaker B.\n*   At [00:49 - 00:53], Speaker A states: \"I love a good production. It's probably because I'm a musician.\" This is a statement about Speaker A's *preference for production quality* and a self-disclosure about their profession.\n*   At [00:53 - 01:00], Speaker B responds: \"I think your favorite song is probably 'This is Me'. That's a really popular song. It was in the movie The Greatest Showman.\" This response is a complete non-sequitur. Speaker A *did not* mention a favorite song, nor did their statement about loving \"good production\" imply or invite a guess about their favorite song. Speaker B's response attributes a favorite song to Speaker A based on no prior information, and it misinterprets Speaker A's comment entirely. This breaks the logical consistency and topic coherence significantly at the very end of the dialogue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n*   There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural and smooth conversational flow.\n*   There are two instances of brief, acceptable overlaps:\n    *   [00:10 - 00:11] Speaker A's \"Who is it?\" overlaps with Speaker B's trailing off (\"...for her\"). This is a common and natural active listening cue, prompting Speaker B to complete their thought.\n    *   [00:21 - 00:24] Speaker A's \"Do you like any music from before 2000?\" overlaps with Speaker B's trailing off (\"...sometimes too\"). This is also a natural transition where one speaker begins a new turn as the other finishes or hesitates, without being disruptive.\nThese overlaps do not harm the fluency; rather, they contribute to a realistic, dynamic conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--230",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: We're flying to Florida tomorrow to visit my grandmother. She's going to take me to Disney World,\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but have you packed everything you need for the trip?\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: Oh, I still need to pack my camera. But I was going to say, she's taking me to Disney World.\n[00:15 - 00:17] Speaker B: That sounds exciting! Will that be your first time there?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n*   **Speaker A (00:00-00:05)** introduces the core topic: a trip to Florida and Disney World.\n*   **Speaker B (00:05-00:08)**, while interrupting, poses a question (\"have you packed everything you need?\") that is highly relevant to the context of \"flying to Florida tomorrow.\" It's a practical, logical interjection within the broader topic of a trip.\n*   **Speaker A (00:09-00:14)** directly addresses Speaker B's question (\"Oh, I still need to pack my camera.\") showing logical adherence to the previous turn. Speaker A then naturally brings the conversation back to their original point of interest (\"But I was going to say, she's taking me to Disney World.\"), demonstrating their desire to complete their thought and maintaining coherence with their initial statement.\n*   **Speaker B (00:15-00:17)** acknowledges Speaker A's excitement about Disney World (\"That sounds exciting!\") and then asks a follow-up question directly related to Disney World (\"Will that be your first time there?\"), showing engagement and maintaining topic coherence.\nDespite the interruption, the conversation flows logically, and participants engage with each other's points, even when shifting focus momentarily.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n*   There are no long pauses between speaker turns, ensuring a natural and continuous flow of conversation.\n*   The only instance of an overlap is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Sorry to interrupt, but...\"). This indicates a brief, intentional interruption rather than a prolonged or accidental overlap. As per the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This acknowledged interruption does not disrupt the conversation's flow significantly or cause confusion; instead, it feels natural as one speaker interjects a thought. The conversation immediately picks up after this, with Speaker A responding directly.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--60464",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, I'm looking for a new air conditioner.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Sure, we have a few different models. What's your budget?\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker A: $200.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: We have a few models that might work for you. Let me show you some of our more affordable\n[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker A: Actually, before we go further, do any of these models have energy-saving features? I'm really looking to keep my electricity bill down.\n[00:21 - 00:35] Speaker B: Yes, some of the models do have energy-saving modes. This first one is our most popular and it's within your budget. It has a timer so you can set it to turn on and off at certain times, and it also has a remote so you can control it from anywhere in the room.\n[00:35 - 00:37] Speaker A: That sounds perfect. I'll take that one.\n[00:38 - 00:40] Speaker B: Great, I'll get you set up with that.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance.\n*   Speaker B's initial response ([00:03 - 00:06]) is a direct and logical follow-up to Speaker A's request, asking for budget information which is crucial for product recommendation.\n*   Speaker A's budget response ([00:06 - 00:07]) is precise and to the point.\n*   Speaker B's partial response ([00:08 - 00:12]) begins to address Speaker A's budget constraint, indicating an intention to show affordable options.\n*   Speaker A's interjection ([00:12 - 00:20]) is highly relevant; it introduces a new, critical criterion (energy-saving features) *before* Speaker B proceeds with generic affordable options, ensuring the recommendations are tailored. This is a common and logical progression in sales interactions.\n*   Speaker B's detailed response ([00:21 - 00:35]) perfectly addresses Speaker A's energy-saving query, clarifies that it's within budget, and highlights specific features (timer, remote) that add value. This demonstrates active listening and effective information provision.\n*   Speaker A's decision ([00:35 - 00:37]) is a direct consequence of Speaker B's successful recommendation.\n*   Speaker B's final response ([00:38 - 00:40]) appropriately confirms the next steps.\n\nThe conversation is logically consistent and maintains topic coherence throughout, moving from initial query to specific needs and a final decision smoothly.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n*   There are small pauses between turns ([00:02-00:03], [00:07-00:08], [00:20-00:21], [00:37-00:38]), all of which are 1 second or less. These are natural and do not hinder the flow of conversation.\n*   The only instance of an overlap occurs at [00:12]. Speaker B is saying \"affordable\" when Speaker A interjects with \"Actually, before we go further...\". This is a brief and functional overlap. Speaker A is not interrupting to change the subject or to dominate, but rather to insert a crucial clarifying question *before* Speaker B goes into detail about models that might not meet this newly specified need. This type of interruption is common and natural in real-world conversations, indicating active engagement and efficiently guiding the interaction.\n*   There are no prolonged pauses or extended overlapping turns that would be considered harmful according to the criteria. The turn-taking is efficient and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--51420",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Your hair looks like you just got out of bed without\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Did you just wake up?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker A: I did, actually.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Huh. I would have never guessed.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker A: Why not?\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: It's just, you look so put together otherwise. Like you have your life together.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: Well, I'm not sure about that. But thank you for the compliment.\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker B: No problem. So, what do you usually do\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker A: Sorry, just curious—what's your morning routine like?\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker B: Oh, nothing special, really. I'm a writer.\n[00:25 - 00:27] Speaker A: That's amazing! What do you write?\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker B: Mostly fiction, but I also dabble in non-fiction and poetry sometimes.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n\n*   **Initial Exchange (00:00-00:07):** Speaker A's comment about hair leads naturally to Speaker B's question about waking up, which Speaker A confirms. Speaker B's follow-up about A looking \"put together\" is a direct response and adds a complimentary note. Speaker A's \"Why not?\" is a logical request for elaboration.\n*   **Elaboration and Compliment (00:08-00:16):** Speaker B elaborates on their previous comment, maintaining topic coherence. Speaker A's response (\"Well, I'm not sure about that. But thank you for the compliment.\") directly addresses Speaker B's compliment.\n*   **Topic Transition and Interruption (00:17-00:22):** Speaker B attempts to transition to a new topic (\"So, what do you usually do\"). Speaker A's interruption, \"Sorry, just curious—what's your morning routine like?\", is contextually relevant. It directly connects to the previous discussion about Speaker A \"just waking up\" and Speaker B's comment about A looking \"put together.\" It shows Speaker A's curiosity stemming from the established context, making it logically consistent with the preceding turns.\n*   **New Topic Development (00:22-00:31):** Speaker B answers the morning routine question, introducing their profession. Speaker A's immediate follow-up about writing (\"That's amazing! What do you write?\") is a highly relevant and natural next question, leading to Speaker B detailing their work.\n\nAll responses are coherent, logical, and contribute to the natural flow of the conversation, building on previous statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good, reflecting natural conversation.\n\n*   **Brief Overlap (00:01 - 00:02):** There is a 1-second overlap where Speaker B starts their question while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This is a very brief overlap, common in natural conversation where speakers anticipate or react quickly, and is explicitly stated as acceptable (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\"). It does not disrupt understanding or flow.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Most transitions are immediate (0 seconds) or very short (1 second), which indicates a lively and engaged conversation. For example:\n    *   `00:02` (end A) to `00:03` (start A) - 1 second.\n    *   `00:04` (end A) to `00:04` (start B) - 0 seconds.\n    *   `00:07` (end A) to `00:08` (start B) - 1 second.\n    *   `00:16` (end A) to `00:17` (start B) - 1 second.\n*   **Interruption (00:19):** Speaker A interrupts Speaker B's attempted topic change. However, this is handled very naturally, with Speaker A immediately apologizing (\"Sorry\") before stating their curiosity. This type of interruption, especially when acknowledging it, is a common feature of dynamic, engaged conversation and doesn't signify a lack of fluency but rather a natural conversational rhythm. It's not an \"extended overlap\" but a conversational turn-taking mechanism.\n\nOverall, the dialogue demonstrates excellent interactional fluency with realistic turn-taking, appropriate pacing, and natural handling of minor overlaps and interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--637",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Have you seen Martin Scorsese's latest film, The Irishman?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: I haven't seen it yet, but it's on my list. Do you think it's worth watching?\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: It has Robert De Niro in it, so I say it's worth a try.\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: Yeah - I mean the story's cool, but what do you think about his new age approach to using de-aging\n[00:18 - 00:27] Speaker A: I think it's kind of a departure from his usual acting style, but I don't know if it's a bad thing. It's more subdued, but in a way it's almost like he's more liberated.\n[00:28 - 00:36] Speaker B: Do you think that's the approach of most of today's actors? I feel like a lot of actors are turning to stage plays or indie films instead of sticking to\n[00:35 - 00:47] Speaker A: Mainstream cinema? That's an interesting point. I think it might be because they want more creative freedom and less commercial pressure. By the way, I was going to say about De Niro's new age approach...",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains good response relevance.\n*   Speaker A introduces \"The Irishman,\" and Speaker B asks a relevant follow-up question.\n*   Speaker A provides a relevant answer about Robert De Niro.\n*   Speaker B then pivots to a specific aspect: De Niro's \"new age approach to using de-aging.\" This is a relevant, albeit more specific, tangent related to the film and actor.\n*   Speaker A addresses this by discussing De Niro's acting style, which is a coherent response to the \"new age approach\" comment.\n*   However, Speaker B then makes a more significant topic jump at [00:28 - 00:36], generalizing from De Niro's approach to \"most of today's actors\" and their preference for stage plays or indie films over mainstream cinema. While tangentially related to \"actors,\" this is a broader shift from the specific discussion about De Niro's performance in \"The Irishman.\"\n*   Speaker A addresses this new broader topic but then immediately attempts to redirect back to the previous point about \"De Niro's new age approach\" at [00:47]. This explicit redirection indicates that Speaker A perceived a deviation from the previous, more specific topic, suggesting a slight break in logical consistency or topic coherence, at least from Speaker A's perspective.\n\nOverall, the relevance is strong for most of the dialogue, but Speaker B's generalization and Speaker A's subsequent attempt to re-center the conversation indicate that the topic flow isn't *consistently* perfectly natural or aligned. It's a common conversational drift, but it deviates slightly from \"consistently appropriate and natural\" topic coherence. However, it's not a \"significant issue\" leading to misunderstanding or communication breakdown.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n*   There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Each speaker responds promptly.\n*   There is a brief overlap between Speaker B and Speaker A from [00:35 - 00:36]. Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This is a very common and natural conversational phenomenon, especially when one speaker anticipates or completes the other's thought (as Speaker A does by saying \"Mainstream cinema?\" to complete Speaker B's \"instead of sticking to...\"). This brief, 1-second overlap is well within the acceptable range and contributes to the naturalness and engagement of the dialogue rather than hindering it. It is not an \"extended overlap\" or \"prolonged\" in a harmful way.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--87",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: May I help you, sir?\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: Yes. I'm looking for a nice gift for my mother. It's her birthday tomorrow.\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker A: Do you have anything special in mind?\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker B: No, not really.\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker A: Perhaps she would like a necklace. We have many choices including some\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker B: Sorry, but my mom doesn't like jewels.\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker A: Well, then. Maybe a watch would be nice.\n[00:19 - 00:27] Speaker B: Yes, that's it. She does need a new watch with big, clear numbers. She has complained a lot about the small numbers on her current watch,\n[00:26 - 00:35] Speaker A: Oh, I see. We have a few options with larger numbers. How about this gold one? It's pretty, and I'm sure it will be easy for her to read the time.\n[00:36 - 00:38] Speaker B: Don't you think it's a bit too fancy for old ladies?\n[00:39 - 00:43] Speaker A: No, it actually sells very well and the old ladies like it very much.\n[00:43 - 00:45] Speaker B: Maybe you are right. I'll take it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial request for a gift is directly addressed by Speaker A.\n- Speaker A's suggestions (necklace, watch) are relevant to the context of gift-giving.\n- Speaker B provides clear feedback (\"doesn't like jewels\"), which Speaker A immediately incorporates into the next suggestion (\"Maybe a watch\").\n- Speaker B then provides specific requirements for the watch (\"big, clear numbers\"), which Speaker A acknowledges and uses to tailor the next suggestion (\"options with larger numbers,\" \"easy for her to read the time\").\n- Speaker B's concern about the watch being \"too fancy\" is directly addressed by Speaker A with a practical, reassuring response (\"sells very well and the old ladies like it very much\").\n- The conversation culminates in a logical decision by Speaker B.\nEach turn builds meaningfully on the previous one, ensuring a coherent and logically consistent flow towards resolving the customer's need.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Most pauses are 0-1 second, which is natural for conversation.\n- There are two instances of overlaps:\n    - At [00:14], Speaker B starts speaking at the exact moment Speaker A's turn ends. This is a very brief overlap or simultaneous turn-taking, indicating quick responsiveness rather than a disruptive interruption. Speaker A's phrase \"including some\" is cut off, suggesting a natural, albeit abrupt, interruption by Speaker B who has immediate feedback.\n    - At [00:26], Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing (B's turn ends at 00:27). This is a 1-second overlap. While technically an overlap, it is not \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" in a way that harms comprehension or makes the conversation unnatural. It can be interpreted as Speaker A processing Speaker B's information quickly and formulating a response without significant delay, eager to help.\nBoth overlaps are brief and do not hinder the flow or understanding of the dialogue. They contribute to a sense of natural, dynamic conversation rather than signaling a breakdown in fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--42593",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much. Just hanging out.\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker A: Yeah, I guess. I'm just feeling kind of down today.\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: Why? What's been bothering\n[00:08 - 00:20] Speaker A: Sorry to cut you off, it's just that it's been on my mind all day. It's school and stuff. I feel like I'm not doing well enough and everyone is so popular and I'm just not. And it sucks.\n[00:21 - 00:32] Speaker B: Oh, Lucca. I'm sorry to hear that. It sounds like you're feeling a lot of pressure right now. But you know, you don't have to be perfect or popular to be happy. As long as you're doing your best, that's all that really matters,\n[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker A: But what if my best isn't good enough? I mean, what if I just keep falling behind?\n[00:37 - 00:48] Speaker B: I get it, Lucca. It's tough when you feel like you're not measuring up. But remember, progress isn't always about being the best; it's about being better than you were yesterday. And sometimes, it's okay to ask for help too.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides logical, empathetic, and supportive responses that directly address Speaker A's expressed feelings and concerns about school, performance, and popularity. The topic coherence is perfectly maintained throughout the conversation. Speaker B's advice and validation (\"I'm sorry to hear that,\" \"It sounds like you're feeling a lot of pressure,\" \"you don't have to be perfect,\" \"I get it, Lucca,\" \"progress isn't always about being the best\") are highly relevant and appropriate to the emotional context of Speaker A's struggle. There are no instances of irrelevant or off-topic responses, ensuring a coherent and meaningful exchange.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is largely natural and appropriate. There are no long pauses identified in the transcript. The only instance of an overlap occurs between Speaker B's line at `[00:07 - 00:09]` and Speaker A's line at `[00:08 - 00:20]`. This is a 1-second overlap (from 00:08 to 00:09). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to cut you off,\" which indicates a minor disruption in turn-taking. However, this overlap is very brief and not \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" according to the scoring criteria. Such brief, acknowledged interruptions can occur naturally in conversations, especially when a speaker is eager to share something important. It does not significantly harm the overall flow, and the conversation recovers immediately without further fluency issues. Therefore, while not perfectly seamless at that specific point, it does not represent a significant issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--113",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Excuse me, Sir, do you know what time it is?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Oh, it's almost eleven twenty.\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker A: Thank you.\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: You're welcome. The rain is quite heavy, isn't [interrupt]\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Oh, yes! I was in such a hurry that I completely forgot my umbrella today.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: I have one. We could share it. Which way are you going?\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker A: Oh, that's very kind of you. I am going to the Garden Hotel.\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker B: I am going there, too. By the way, I was going to say earlier, the rain is really coming down hard. We should hurry.\n[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker A: Absolutely. Let's get going.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **Speaker A's initial query** about the time is met with a direct and accurate response from Speaker B.\n2.  **Speaker A's \"Thank you\"** is a natural and polite follow-up.\n3.  **Speaker B's \"You're welcome\"** is also polite, and their subsequent observation about the rain (`The rain is quite heavy, isn't [interrupt]`) introduces a new, yet contextually relevant, topic that naturally arises from the shared environment.\n4.  **Speaker A's `Oh, yes! I was in such a hurry that I completely forgot my umbrella today.`** is a highly relevant response to Speaker B's observation, providing a personal detail that explains their situation regarding the rain.\n5.  **Speaker B's offer to share an umbrella** and question about Speaker A's destination (`I have one. We could share it. Which way are you going?`) is a direct, empathetic, and logical next step given Speaker A's previous statement.\n6.  **Speaker A's acceptance** and disclosure of their destination (`Oh, that's very kind of you. I am going to the Garden Hotel.`) directly answers Speaker B's questions and moves the interaction forward.\n7.  **Speaker B's `I am going there, too. By the way, I was going to say earlier, the rain is really coming down hard. We should hurry.`** further builds on the shared information, confirming a common destination and reinforcing the urgency prompted by the weather, linking back to the previous topic of rain.\n8.  **Speaker A's final `Absolutely. Let's get going.`** is a clear and relevant affirmation, indicating agreement and readiness to act.\n\nOverall, the conversation flows very naturally, with each turn building logically on the previous one, maintaining high topic coherence throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high, characterized by natural pacing with only acceptable pauses and a brief, non-disruptive overlap.\n1.  **Pauses:** There are brief 1-second pauses between Speaker A's first turn and Speaker B's response (`[00:02]` end A, `[00:03]` start B) and between Speaker B's response and Speaker A's \"Thank you\" (`[00:04]` end B, `[00:05]` start A). These are natural and do not indicate hesitation or a breakdown in communication. All subsequent turns have immediate transitions (0-second pauses), indicating a very smooth and engaging conversation.\n2.  **Overlaps:** There is one instance of overlap:\n    *   `[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: You're welcome. The rain is quite heavy, isn't [interrupt]`\n    *   `[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Oh, yes! I was in such a hurry that I completely forgot my umbrella today.`\n    Speaker A starts speaking at `00:07` while Speaker B is still speaking until `00:08`. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B's utterance is \"isn't [interrupt]\", suggesting Speaker A interjects to enthusiastically agree with Speaker B's observation about the rain. This type of brief, anticipatory overlap, especially when agreeing or completing a thought, is common in natural conversation and does not hinder the flow or understanding. It indicates engagement rather than disruption.\nThe instructions specify that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this interaction clearly falls within that acceptable range. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would impede the conversation's natural rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--558",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Would you like to try cooking for me? You don't have to cook fancy meals or anything - I'm open to anything!\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Hm. That's not a bad idea. I don't know much about cooking, though.\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker A: Don't worry, I'll teach you! Can you bring me some ingredients on your way here\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but what kind of ingredients do you need? I want to make sure I get everything right.\n[00:21 - 00:30] Speaker A: Oh, just some basic things like vegetables, pasta, and maybe some chicken. And I was going to ask if you could bring some spices as well, but I can\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker B: Spices? Got it. I'll make sure to get a variety. See you in ten minutes.\n[00:34 - 00:36] Speaker A: Great! See you soon.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows from the previous one, ensuring strong topic coherence throughout the conversation.\n- Speaker B's initial response \"Hm. That's not a bad idea. I don't know much about cooking, though\" directly addresses Speaker A's invitation to cook and adds a relevant personal constraint.\n- Speaker A's subsequent offer to teach and request for ingredients directly responds to B's constraint and propels the cooking plan forward.\n- Speaker B's interruption \"Sorry to interrupt, but what kind of ingredients do you need?\" is highly relevant as it seeks necessary clarification for the task at hand.\n- Speaker A's detailed list of ingredients is a direct and appropriate answer to B's question.\n- Speaker B's final confirmation about spices and arrival time wraps up the practical arrangements logically.\nThere are no irrelevant, illogical, or confusing turns; the conversation flows smoothly from initiation to planning.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- **Pauses:** There are small pauses of approximately 1 second between turns (e.g., 00:06-00:07, 00:20-00:21), which are natural and do not indicate any communication breakdown or awkwardness. Other transitions are immediate or involve brief overlaps.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps:\n    - [00:14 - 00:15]: Speaker B starts speaking (14s) while Speaker A is still speaking (finishing at 15s). This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly states \"Sorry to interrupt,\" indicating awareness and politeness, which is a common and natural occurrence in fluid conversation, especially when seeking clarification. It is not prolonged or disruptive.\n    - [00:29 - 00:30]: Speaker B starts speaking (29s) while Speaker A is still speaking (finishing at 30s). This is also a 1-second overlap. Speaker A was saying \"but I can\" and Speaker B interjects with \"Spices? Got it.\" This brief interjection indicates engagement and quick processing of information, again a natural aspect of rapid, interactive dialogue. It is not prolonged and does not hinder understanding.\nGiven that the prompt specifies \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful,\" these brief, natural overlaps and short pauses contribute to, rather than detract from, the naturalness of the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--580",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I'm thinking of buying a new computer.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Why don't you buy a Macbook?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: Well, they're a bit too expensive for my budget at\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but have you considered looking at refurbished models? They can be much cheaper.\n[00:12 - 00:22] Speaker A: That's a good point. I hadn't thought about refurbished ones. But I was going to say, for my taste. Oh. What about this one? It's really thin and lightweight.\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B: Hmm, I'm not sure about it. It doesn't have a webcam.\n[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker A: You can connect a webcam to it using an external device,\n[00:29 - 00:36] Speaker B: Adapter, yes, but I'm also concerned about the overall performance. Is it powerful enough for what you need?\n[00:37 - 00:40] Speaker A: Oh okay. It looks okay. Do you have this model?\n[00:41 - 00:43] Speaker B: No, but I can buy it for you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with good response relevance. Speaker A introduces a topic (buying a new computer), and Speaker B provides a relevant suggestion (Macbook). Speaker A raises a valid concern (cost), and Speaker B offers a relevant counter-suggestion (refurbished models). Speaker A then introduces a specific computer, which is a relevant pivot. Speaker B's concerns about the specific model (webcam, performance) are highly relevant to the discussion of buying a computer.\n\nHowever, response relevance significantly deteriorates towards the end.\n- Speaker A's \"Oh okay. It looks okay. Do you have this model?\" is problematic. \"It looks okay\" is a vague and non-committal response to Speaker B's important question about performance (\"Is it powerful enough for what you need?\"). The follow-up question, \"Do you have this model?\", abruptly shifts the focus from the *product's suitability* to Speaker B's *personal ownership*, which is not logically connected to the ongoing performance discussion. It seems to deflect or change the subject.\n- Speaker B's final response, \"No, but I can buy it for you,\" is a complete breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B has been acting as an advisor, not a prospective buyer or a financial backer for Speaker A. This response is highly nonsensical in the context of the conversation and introduces an entirely irrelevant and unexpected proposition, making the dialogue illogical at its conclusion. This is a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is largely good throughout the dialogue. There are two instances of overlap:\n- At [00:06 - 00:11], Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which is a natural way to handle an interruption in conversation. Speaker A stops speaking promptly at [00:07], indicating a natural yielding of the floor. This is a brief and well-managed overlap.\n- At [00:29 - 00:36], Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A. Speaker B interjects \"Adapter, yes\" seemingly completing Speaker A's thought and then transitions smoothly into a new concern about performance. Speaker A stops speaking at [00:30], again indicating a natural yielding. This is also a brief and natural conversational overlap.\nThere are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns. The pacing feels natural for a casual conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--43",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: There are so many jobs to choose from. What do you want to explore? Maybe\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but have you considered something in the media? There's TV, newspapers, the Internet.\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker A: I was actually about to mention that! Let me have a look. Uhm, how about this? You could become a TV news director.\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker B: Are you joking? Directing the news would be very stressful.\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker A: Well, writing for a magazine would be exciting. How about that?\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker B: No, I'm more interested in working with computers. Hey, look, interactive media. I'd like that.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance throughout.\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A** asks an open-ended question about job exploration.\n2.  **[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B** directly responds by suggesting a specific field (\"media\"), showing they are engaged with Speaker A's initial query.\n3.  **[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker A** acknowledges B's suggestion (\"I was actually about to mention that!\") and then provides a specific job within that field (\"TV news director\"). This demonstrates logical progression and topic coherence.\n4.  **[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker B** directly rejects A's suggestion, providing a reason (\"very stressful\"). This is a clear, relevant, and logical response.\n5.  **[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker A** pivots based on B's feedback, offering another job within the broader media context (\"writing for a magazine\"). This shows adaptability and continued focus on the job search.\n6.  **[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker B** again rejects the suggestion but then introduces a new, refined preference (\"working with computers\") and immediately connects it to a specific job (\"interactive media\"). This is a natural evolution of the job exploration process, where preferences are clarified. The shift in focus is coherent and driven by B's expressed interest, maintaining the overall topic of job choices.\n\nOverall, the responses are logically consistent, and the topic flows coherently, adapting naturally to the expressed preferences and rejections of the speakers.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits excellent fluency.\n1.  **Overlap:** There is one brief overlap at the beginning ([00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B starts while Speaker A is still speaking until 0:04). This overlap is very short (1 second) and explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B with \"Sorry to jump in.\" This is a common and natural feature of dynamic conversation, indicating active listening and eagerness to contribute rather than a disruptive issue. It does not hinder understanding or flow.\n2.  **Pauses:** There are no long or disruptive pauses between speaker turns. Each speaker responds promptly, keeping the conversation moving at a natural pace. The timestamps indicate immediate transitions between turns after the initial brief overlap.\n\nThe conversation feels natural, spontaneous, and unhindered by timing issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--278",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: IBA, Client Services Department. Shelley speaking, how can I help?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Client Services? Oh, hello. I need your help.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker A: Certainly, that's what we're here for. What can I help you with?\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: I'm a tourist in this city and unfortunately I've lost my card!\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker A: Calm down, Sir. Is that an IBA Debit or Credit Card?\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B: Credit Card. The International Credit Card, I can't find it and I'm\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but do you remember where you last used it? It might help us track it down quicker.\n[00:29 - 00:36] Speaker B: Yes, I had it in the hotel lobby bar; I used it to charge something to my room. I obviously didn't pick it up again.\n[00:36 - 00:38] Speaker A: OK, when do you think you lost it?\n[00:39 - 00:42] Speaker B: I'm not 100% sure, around an hour ago I guess.\n[00:43 - 00:48] Speaker A: That's fine, Sir. Let me just take some details from you and we can help you cancel the\n[00:47 - 00:49] Speaker B: Thank you. Thank you very much.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate high logical consistency and topic coherence. Each speaker's turn builds directly upon the previous one, maintaining a clear focus on the client's lost credit card and the steps to resolve the issue.\n\n*   Speaker A's initial greeting is standard and invites the client to state their purpose.\n*   Speaker B clearly states their problem, \"I've lost my card!\", which prompts Speaker A to seek clarifying details (\"Is that an IBA Debit or Credit Card?\").\n*   The slight interjection by Speaker A at `[00:23 - 00:29]` (\"Sorry to jump in, but do you remember where you last used it?\") is strategically placed to gather crucial information for problem-solving. This is logically sound and enhances efficiency, rather than disrupting coherence.\n*   Speaker B provides the requested information immediately (`[00:29 - 00:36]`), and Speaker A then naturally progresses to the next relevant question (\"when do you think you lost it?\").\n*   The final exchange moves towards the next logical step in client service (\"Let me just take some details from you and we can help you cancel the\") and is met with appropriate gratitude from Speaker B.\n\nThere are no instances of irrelevant questions, non-sequiturs, or misunderstandings that break the flow or logic of the conversation. The dialogue remains entirely focused on assisting Speaker B with their lost card.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent, reflecting natural conversation.\n\n*   **Long Pauses:** There are no instances of long or unnatural pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are smooth, with only very brief, natural pauses (e.g., 1 second between `[00:10]` and `[00:11]`, and `[00:38]` and `[00:39]`), which contribute to the realism of the interaction rather than hindering it.\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps, both of which are acceptable and even enhance the naturalness of the conversation:\n    *   At `[00:23 - 00:29]`, Speaker A briefly interjects while Speaker B is mid-sentence. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which indicates politeness and a strategic move to gather urgent information. This is a common and functionally appropriate conversational strategy in problem-solving scenarios, not a disruptive \"prolonged\" overlap.\n    *   At `[00:47 - 00:49]`, Speaker B briefly overlaps Speaker A to express gratitude (\"Thank you. Thank you very much.\") as Speaker A is stating the next steps. This is a very common and polite form of simultaneous speech in natural dialogue, where one speaker anticipates or responds quickly to the other's closing thought. It is brief and does not impede understanding or the flow of the conversation.\n\nNeither overlap is prolonged or harmful; instead, they contribute to the dynamic and realistic feel of the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--419",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: What do you like to do when you're not at work?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: I like to watch Youtube video tutorials and learn new skills, especially\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I just got curious, what kind of skills are you focusing on right now?\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: Mostly coding and graphic design. But I haven't mentioned that I also enjoy cooking tutorials because I\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker A: Cooking tutorials sound interesting! Do you try out the recipes you watch?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence.\n*   Speaker A's initial question is open-ended and clear.\n*   Speaker B's first response directly answers the question, setting up the topic of learning new skills via video tutorials.\n*   Speaker A's first interruption is immediately followed by a highly relevant follow-up question (\"what kind of skills are you focusing on right now?\"), which directly elaborates on B's previous statement. This shows active listening and engagement.\n*   Speaker B's second response directly answers A's specific question and then naturally expands on the general topic by adding \"cooking tutorials\" to the list of interests.\n*   Speaker A's second interruption/response is also highly relevant, picking up on \"cooking tutorials\" and asking a related follow-up question (\"Do you try out the recipes you watch?\").\nThere are no instances of irrelevant information, contradictory statements, or shifts in topic that are not explicitly linked to the previous turn. The conversation flows very naturally and coherently.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits generally good fluency, although there are two instances of overlapping speech where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B.\n*   **Overlap 1 (00:05 - 00:10):** Speaker A interrupts Speaker B mid-sentence (\"...especially\") at the 00:05 mark, while B's turn ends at 00:06. This constitutes a brief overlap (approximately 1 second). However, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the interruption with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which mitigates its negative impact and signals politeness and eagerness rather than a disregard for B's turn. This falls within the acceptable range of \"brief overlaps.\"\n*   **Overlap 2 (00:16 - 00:20):** Speaker A again interrupts Speaker B mid-sentence (\"...because I\") exactly as B's turn ends at 00:16. While the timestamp indicates no direct overlap in duration, B was clearly cut off before finishing their thought. This interruption is not accompanied by an apology. Despite the cut-off, Speaker A's subsequent comment and question are highly relevant and demonstrate engagement rather than disinterest. The brief nature of the interjection and its immediate relevance prevent it from being a \"prolonged overlapping turn\" that harms the conversation.\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns. The presence of brief, eager interruptions, particularly the first one being acknowledged, indicates a dynamic and engaged conversation rather than a breakdown in fluency. These interruptions do not lead to confusion or a loss of conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--49520",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, babe. I'm home.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Hey, Leandro. How was your day?\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: It was good. I got a lot done at work and then I went to the gym. How was your day? Did\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but did you manage to talk to your boss about that project you were concerned about?\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker A: Oh, yes, I did. He was actually pretty open to my suggestions, which was a relief. But, how was your day?\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B: It was good. I did some shopping and then I made lunch for the kids.\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker A: That sounds like a productive day. I'm glad you were able to get some things done while the kids were at school. It's\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker B: Yeah, it was nice to have some time to myself. So, what did you do at the gym?\n[00:38 - 00:43] Speaker A: I worked out for a little bit and then I played some basketball with some of the guys.\n[00:43 - 00:45] Speaker B: That sounds like fun. Did you win?\n[00:45 - 00:50] Speaker A: Yeah, we won. It was a close game, but we pulled it out in the end.\n[00:50 - 00:52] Speaker B: That's great. I'm glad you had a good day.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speakers consistently address the questions asked and acknowledge previous statements.\n- Speaker B's initial query \"How was your day?\" is directly answered by Speaker A.\n- Speaker B's interruption about the boss project, while a topic shift, is explicitly acknowledged (\"Sorry to interrupt\") and highly relevant to an ongoing concern between the speakers, showing good contextual awareness and memory. Speaker A then answers it thoroughly before redirecting back to Speaker B.\n- Speaker A consistently tries to ask Speaker B about their day, showing a reciprocal nature in the conversation.\n- Speaker B provides relevant details when asked about their day and then smoothly transitions back to asking Speaker A for more details about their gym activities, building on previously mentioned information.\n- All follow-up questions (e.g., \"Did you win?\") are logical and pertinent to the ongoing discussion.\n- The conversation flows coherently, managing slight topic shifts (the boss project) very naturally without losing overall coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits excellent fluency.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and natural. For instance, the 1-second pause between [00:22] and [00:23] is a very common and natural conversational beat.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - At [00:10], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. However, Speaker B immediately says, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which is a conversational cue that acknowledges the overlap and manages it effectively, making it sound natural and not harmful. Speaker A's turn ending abruptly (\"Did\") further indicates a brief interruption, not an extended, disruptive overlap.\n    - At [00:33], Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still talking. The overlap is only 1 second ([00:33 - 00:34]). Speaker B's utterance \"Yeah, it was nice to have some time to myself\" directly responds to Speaker A's \"I'm glad you were able to get some things done while the kids were at school. It's\", indicating a quick uptake and natural turn-taking rather than a prolonged or disruptive overlap.\n- These brief overlaps are acceptable and common in natural human conversation, and they do not hinder understanding or flow. There are no \"extended overlaps\" or \"prolonged pauses.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--144669",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Mom, I know I've been acting out a lot lately. I'm sorry for everything. I know I need to grow up and be more responsible.\n[00:08 - 00:17] Speaker B: Kaylea, we've been talking about this for months now. You're not doing your homework, you're not listening in class, and you're not respecting your parents or elders. What's going on with\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker A: Mom, I just feel like I'm screwing up all the time and I can't do anything right.\n[00:22 - 00:31] Speaker B: Well, that's not true. You're a smart kid with a lot of potential. But if you keep acting like this, you're going to get into serious trouble. Do you understand the\n[00:30 - 00:34] Speaker A: I understand, Mom. I'm really sorry. I'll try to do better.\n[00:35 - 00:42] Speaker B: I know you can do it, Kaylea. Just take some time to think about what you want in life and what kind of person you want to be. That's all we can ask for.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the conversation's theme of Speaker A's problematic behavior and Speaker B's guidance.\n\n*   Speaker A's initial apology and admission of needing to grow up is directly addressed by Speaker B, who lists specific concerns.\n*   Speaker A's subsequent expression of feeling like a failure is a direct emotional response to the discussion of their issues.\n*   Speaker B's response reassures Speaker A while still emphasizing the seriousness of the situation, and then asks for understanding, which Speaker A provides.\n*   The dialogue concludes with Speaker B's supportive advice, naturally closing the topic.\n\nThe conversation maintains excellent topic coherence throughout, staying focused on Speaker A's personal growth and responsibility. There are no irrelevant or illogical contributions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n*   `[00:16 - 00:17]` where Speaker A begins speaking 1 second before Speaker B finishes.\n*   `[00:30 - 00:31]` where Speaker A begins speaking 1 second before Speaker B finishes.\n\nThese are considered \"brief overlaps\" and are typical in natural, engaged conversation, often indicating active listening or an eagerness to respond rather than an interruption. They are not \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" overlaps. There are no noticeable long pauses between turns; the conversation flows smoothly and appropriately for a personal discussion of this nature.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--178",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Excuse me. May I take a picture of you?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: What for?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: I just want to show my children how an American policeman looks in\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: Oh, that's interesting! By the way, do your children have any particular interest in law enforcement?\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: Yes, they do. But I hope it won't take too long to take the picture.\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B: No worries, it'll just take a second.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance throughout. Speaker B's initial \"What for?\" is a logical and expected clarification for an unusual request. Speaker A's explanation directly answers this. Speaker B's subsequent question about children's interest naturally extends the topic based on Speaker A's explanation, maintaining coherence. Speaker A's answer (\"Yes, they do\") is direct, and the follow-up concern (\"But I hope it won't take too long\") is a reasonable and relevant practical consideration. Finally, Speaker B's \"No worries, it'll just take a second\" directly addresses this concern, bringing the exchange to a natural resolution. All turns are logically consistent and maintain clear topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is a small 1-second pause between Speaker A's initial request and Speaker B's \"What for?\" (0:02-0:03), which is natural and not disruptive. There is a brief overlap of 1 second (0:07-0:08) where Speaker B starts with \"Oh, that's interesting!\" while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. As per the instructions, brief overlaps are acceptable and in this context, it sounds like a natural, immediate reaction rather than a disruptive interruption or extended overlap. There are no long pauses between turns, and no extended or harmful overlaps are present. The conversation flows smoothly and naturally.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--304",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Can I be of any service to you?\n[00:02 - 00:09] Speaker B: I've been told that Chinese arts and crafts are famous for their excellent workmanship. We'd like to take some home. What would you suggest for\n[00:08 - 00:16] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but if you're looking for something distinctively Chinese, have you considered items that are also easy to carry?\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker B: That's exactly what we're thinking. We haven't decided yet, but something distinctively Chinese and easy to carry would be ideal.\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker A: In that case, I would suggest you buy paper-cuts, embroidery, and batik. They are very easy to carry.\n[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker B: That sounds good. We'd like to see some embroidery. By the way, you were about to recommend something else earlier, what was it?\n[00:36 - 00:47] Speaker A: Oh yes, I was going to mention tricolored pottery originating in the Tang Dynasty and jade carving as well. They are unique and showcase traditional Chinese craftsmanship.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Can I be of any service to you?** - A standard opening, relevant to customer service.\n2.  **[00:02 - 00:09] Speaker B: I've been told that Chinese arts and crafts are famous for their excellent workmanship. We'd like to take some home. What would you suggest for** - Speaker B responds directly to the offer, stating their purpose and asking for a suggestion. This is highly relevant.\n3.  **[00:08 - 00:16] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but if you're looking for something distinctively Chinese, have you considered items that are also easy to carry?** - Speaker A's interjection, while an overlap (addressed in fluency), is logically consistent. They are clarifying Speaker B's broad request by introducing two key criteria (\"distinctively Chinese\" and \"easy to carry\") that will help narrow down suggestions. This shows active listening and an attempt to be more helpful.\n4.  **[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker B: That's exactly what we're thinking. We haven't decided yet, but something distinctively Chinese and easy to carry would be ideal.** - Speaker B confirms Speaker A's refined criteria, showing perfect topic coherence and agreement.\n5.  **[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker A: In that case, I would suggest you buy paper-cuts, embroidery, and batik. They are very easy to carry.** - Speaker A provides specific suggestions that directly meet the agreed-upon criteria. Highly relevant.\n6.  **[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker B: That sounds good. We'd like to see some embroidery. By the way, you were about to recommend something else earlier, what was it?** - Speaker B selects one item and, impressively, recalls Speaker A's earlier \"jump in\" (at 0:08), asking what else A was going to suggest. This demonstrates excellent memory, engagement, and logical consistency, showing B is paying close attention to the conversation's nuances.\n7.  **[00:36 - 00:47] Speaker A: Oh yes, I was going to mention tricolored pottery originating in the Tang Dynasty and jade carving as well. They are unique and showcase traditional Chinese craftsmanship.** - Speaker A directly answers B's specific question, connecting back to the earlier interruption. This reinforces the logical flow and coherence of the conversation.\n\nOverall, the responses are consistently relevant, the conversation flows naturally without irrelevant detours, and there's a strong sense of logical progression and coherence, even accounting for the self-corrected interruption.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates good interactional fluency with only one brief, acknowledged overlap and no long pauses.\n\n1.  **[00:08 - 00:16] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but if you're looking for something distinctively Chinese, have you considered items that are also easy to carry?**\n    *   **Overlap:** Speaker A begins speaking at 0:08, while Speaker B finishes at 0:09. This is a 1-second overlap. Crucially, Speaker A immediately says \"Sorry to jump in,\" which is a conversational repair mechanism. This indicates awareness of the overlap and politeness, making the interaction feel natural and dynamic rather than disruptive. Per the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this specific instance, with the apology, falls into that category. It does not feel prolonged or harmful.\n2.  **Pauses:**\n    *   There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's first turn and Speaker B's response ([00:01 - 00:02]). This is a natural, brief pause and not considered long or disruptive.\n    *   There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's suggestion and Speaker B's follow-up ([00:29 - 00:30]). Again, this is a natural, brief pause.\n    *   All other turn transitions are immediate or involve the brief, acknowledged overlap.\n    *   There are no \"long pauses\" that would impede the flow of the conversation.\n\nThe dialogue maintains a natural conversational rhythm. The single brief overlap, mitigated by an apology, adds to the naturalness of spoken interaction rather than detracting from it.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--673",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What was your favorite president?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I've never thought about that before. What do you think?\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker A: I think it's hard to say!\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: I was really surprised by how divided the US was over the candidates in this last election. Do you think the media\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker A: Do you think the media played a role in that division?\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B: That's a good point. The media definitely has a significant influence. Do you think Trump will be a good president?\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker A: I guess we'll see. What about you?\n[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker B: I was really hoping Hillary Clinton would win. I think she had a lot of potential to\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker A: I agree, but what specific policies of hers did you support the most?\n[00:32 - 00:36] Speaker B: Her healthcare and education policies were particularly appealing to me.\n[00:36 - 00:37] Speaker A: I hope you're right!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly relates to the previous one, even when introducing new sub-topics. For instance, Speaker B's shift from \"favorite president\" to \"how divided the US was over the candidates\" at [00:07 - 00:13] is a natural progression within a political discussion, rather than an abrupt, irrelevant change. Speaker A's completion of Speaker B's question (\"Do you think the media played a role in that division?\") demonstrates active listening and maintains coherence. Later, Speaker B's question about Trump's presidency [00:15 - 00:21] and Speaker A's follow-up about specific policies of Hillary Clinton [00:27 - 00:32] show an organic evolution of the conversation, maintaining a consistent thematic thread (US politics, elections, presidents, policies). There are no instances of responses being off-topic or illogical given the context.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the longest pauses identified are 1 second, which are natural and acceptable in conversation. Several brief overlaps are present:\n1.  [00:12 - 00:14] Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B for 1 second (B finishes at 00:13, A starts at 00:12). This overlap involves Speaker A completing Speaker B's thought, which often signifies active listening and engagement rather than disruption.\n2.  [00:21 - 00:24] Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B for a fraction of a second (B finishes at 00:21, A starts at 00:21). This is essentially simultaneous turn-taking, common in fluent conversation.\n3.  [00:27 - 00:32] Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B for 1 second (B finishes at 00:28, A starts at 00:27). While an interruption, it's brief and serves to ask a clarifying question, indicating active participation.\nNone of these overlaps are extended or prolonged; they are brief and contribute to the dynamic and natural feel of the conversation. The dialogue flows smoothly without noticeable delays or significant conversational breakdowns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--117746",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Elli! What are you up to?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Just floating on a cloud, enjoying the view! It's so beautiful it makes\n[00:05 - 00:14] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but I just have to ask—do you think we could actually organize something like a cloud club? I mean, how would we even get everyone up here?\n[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker B: That's a good point! Maybe we could find a way to make it happen... like a virtual version or something. But I was going to say, it's so beautiful up here, it makes me want to stay forever.\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker A: I know what you mean. It's like everything is perfect up here.\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker B: Exactly! Maybe we should start our own little cloud club.\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker A: That's a great idea! We can invite all our friends to join us.\n[00:35 - 00:36] Speaker B: Sounds perfect!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's initial question is met with a metaphorical and imaginative response from Speaker B (\"floating on a cloud\"). Speaker A then playfully takes this metaphor literally by proposing a \"cloud club\" and questioning its practicality. This is a very natural and coherent way for a conversation to evolve from a figurative statement. Speaker B addresses Speaker A's literal interpretation (\"That's a good point! Maybe we could find a way...\") before gracefully returning to their original thought that was interrupted. Subsequent turns build on the shared imaginative space, reaffirming the desire to stay on the cloud and re-proposing the \"cloud club\" idea. The topic remains consistently centered around the \"cloud\" experience and the idea of a \"cloud club,\" showing clear topic coherence throughout. There are no irrelevant statements or illogical jumps.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is one brief overlap at [00:05 - 00:14] where Speaker A starts speaking (0:05) while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence (ends 0:06). This is a 1-second overlap. However, Speaker A immediately acknowledges this by saying \"Sorry to cut in,\" which makes the overlap feel natural and polite rather than disruptive or prolonged. This falls under the \"brief overlaps... are acceptable\" category. All other transitions between speakers are immediate or have very short pauses (1 second or less, e.g., 0:14-0:15, 0:27-0:28), which are also acceptable and contribute to a natural conversational rhythm. There are no long or prolonged pauses or extended overlapping turns that hinder the flow. The dialogue feels fluid and dynamic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--564",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm traveling to the Amazon in three weeks. Do you have any tips or advice for me?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: It depends on what type of animal you're most concerned about.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker A: I really want to see an orca in the wild.\n[00:12 - 00:13] Speaker B: Orca? What's that?\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker A: They are huge dolphins. They live in the Arctic. They are\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: Wait, are you sure about that? The Amazon and the Arctic are completely different regions.\n[00:22 - 00:31] Speaker A: Oh, you're right. I got carried away. Anyway, there are plenty of predators in the Amazon. But the biggest threat is usually the humans themselves.\n[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker B: What do you mean by humans being the biggest threat?\n[00:34 - 00:44] Speaker A: I mean, there are issues like illegal logging, poaching, and even conflicts with local communities that can pose significant risks to travelers.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong **Response Relevance**.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** The turns flow logically. Speaker B's initial question (\"what type of animal you're most concerned about?\") is a logical way to narrow down advice for an Amazon trip. Speaker A's response about Orcas, while factually incorrect in context, is a direct answer to B's question. Speaker B's immediate correction (\"Wait, are you sure about that? The Amazon and the Arctic are completely different regions.\") is a crucial and logically consistent intervention to address the factual error. Speaker A's acknowledgment (\"Oh, you're right. I got carried away.\") demonstrates good conversational uptake. The subsequent shift to \"humans as the biggest threat\" is a relevant, albeit slightly abrupt, pivot within the overall theme of Amazon risks/advice. Speaker B's follow-up question (\"What do you mean by humans being the biggest threat?\") is a logical request for clarification, and Speaker A's detailed explanation (\"illegal logging, poaching...\") directly answers it.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The main topic, \"tips or advice for traveling to the Amazon,\" is maintained throughout. While there's a brief detour into Orcas due to Speaker A's misunderstanding, Speaker B quickly brings the conversation back to the relevant geographical context. Speaker A's subsequent shift to human threats in the Amazon keeps the conversation coherent with the original travel advice request, just from a different angle of risk.\n\nOverall, the responses are consistently appropriate, build on previous turns, and ensure the conversation remains on topic, even when correcting misconceptions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent **Interactional Fluency**.\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap between [00:16 - 00:17], where Speaker B starts speaking at 00:16 while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence at 00:17. This is a 1-second overlap. As per the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This overlap is brief and appears to be Speaker B naturally interjecting to correct Speaker A's factual error, which is a common and natural conversational dynamic, not a disruptive or prolonged overlap.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are small pauses of approximately 1 second between several turns ([00:08 - 00:09], [00:11 - 00:12], [00:31 - 00:32]). These are very brief and natural, allowing for processing or turn-taking, and do not constitute \"long pauses\" that would be harmful to fluency. The conversation flows smoothly without any awkward or prolonged silences.\n\nIn summary, the interaction maintains a natural pace with acceptable brief pauses and a non-disruptive, brief overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--132513",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, what do you think?\n[00:01 - 00:06] Speaker B: Well, it's certainly comprehensive. I think you've done a good job of covering all the major points.\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: Thank you. I really wanted to make sure that students would have everything they need to know in one place.\n[00:13 - 00:22] Speaker B: You've definitely succeeded in that. But I do have some concerns about the clarity of your writing. In places, it's very dense and hard to follow, especially\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker A: Oh, could you give me an example? I want to make sure I address the most confusing parts.\n[00:28 - 00:39] Speaker B: Sure. Take this section on photosynthesis for instance. It's crammed with information and there are a lot of technical terms used without explanation. As a result, it's difficult to understand what's going on.\n[00:39 - 00:49] Speaker A: I see... well, maybe I can reorganize it a bit and add some more explanatory text to help clarify things. That might be a good solution.\n[00:49 - 00:58] Speaker B: Yes, that could work well. Another thing to consider is breaking up the longer paragraphs into shorter ones. That would make the information more digestible for readers.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn directly addresses the previous statement or contributes logically to the ongoing discussion about evaluating a document.\n- Speaker A initiates the conversation by asking for an opinion.\n- Speaker B provides a multi-faceted response, praising comprehensiveness while immediately raising concerns about clarity, which is directly relevant to evaluation.\n- Speaker A responds appropriately by asking for specific examples to address the concerns.\n- Speaker B provides a detailed and concrete example (photosynthesis section) and explains why it's unclear, maintaining topic coherence.\n- Speaker A acknowledges the feedback and proposes a relevant solution.\n- Speaker B affirms the solution and adds another constructive suggestion, continuing the problem-solving thread.\nThere are no irrelevant tangents, abrupt topic shifts, or statements that do not logically follow from the preceding conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- **Pauses:** There are short, natural pauses between turns (e.g., 1 second between 0:06 and 0:07, and 1 second between 0:27 and 0:28). These are brief and do not hinder the conversation flow; they are typical of natural speech.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap identified: Speaker A (0:21 - 0:27) begins speaking while Speaker B (0:13 - 0:22) is still finishing their sentence (specifically, from 0:21 to 0:22). This overlap is approximately 1 second long. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This particular overlap seems like an eager interjection by Speaker A to ask for clarification, which is natural in an engaged conversation, rather than a disruptive or prolonged overlap. It does not seem to impede understanding or signify a breakdown in turn-taking.\nOverall, the pacing is natural, and there are no prolonged pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--571",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I'm really interested in learning about psychology and philosophy.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Are those things in the same field?\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Yes. Psychology is the study of the mind and philosophy is the study of how to think critically\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but does philosophy also cover ethics and morality?\n[00:15 - 00:26] Speaker A: Yes, it does. Philosophy covers a wide range of topics, including ethics and morality. I didn't realize psychology and philosophy were both related to understanding human\n[00:25 - 00:32] Speaker B: Actually, I think they complement each other well. For example, understanding the mind can help us better grasp philosophical concepts.\n[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker A: That's a great point! I'm glad you're teaching yourself new things.\n[00:37 - 00:40] Speaker B: I like learning about psychology and philosophy.\n[00:41 - 00:47] Speaker A: Learning is so interesting! It can make you wonder about things that you never would have thought about before.\n[00:47 - 00:49] Speaker B: Do you like learning too?\n[00:49 - 00:51] Speaker A: I enjoy learning a lot!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial question (\"Are those things in the same field?\") directly addresses Speaker A's opening statement. Speaker A provides relevant definitions, and Speaker B follows up with a pertinent clarification about philosophy. The conversation then naturally evolves from defining the fields to exploring their relationship, with Speaker B articulating how they complement each other. Speaker A's subsequent comments about learning being interesting and Speaker B's reciprocal question about Speaker A's interest maintain the thematic coherence around the shared topic of intellectual curiosity and learning. The only minor point is Speaker A's \"I'm glad you're teaching yourself new things\" at [00:33 - 00:37], which feels like a slight assumption or a bit of a leap, as Speaker B didn't explicitly state they were self-teaching, just expressing an interest and making a connection. However, this is a very minor detraction and does not significantly disrupt the logical flow or topic coherence. Overall, the responses are highly relevant and the conversation progresses smoothly.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns. The timestamps show quick turn-taking, with only 1-second gaps (e.g., between [00:32] and [00:33], and [00:40] and [00:41]), which are considered small and acceptable. There is one brief overlap between [00:25] and [00:26], where Speaker B starts speaking just as Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This 1-second overlap is brief and natural, often indicating active listening or eagerness to contribute, and aligns with the criteria stating that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" There are no extended, disruptive overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--391",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Tina, how long have you been learning the piano?\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: For 8 years. I began to play when I was 7. My father found a teacher for me who is from the Royal Academy\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: Oh, from the UK? That's interesting. Are you still learning from that teacher?\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker B: Yes, I go to her home every Saturday.\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker A: No wonder you can play so well. By the way, you mentioned your teacher is from the UK, right?\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker B: Yes, my teacher is very excellent and she has won many awards.\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: Good. Could you please introduce me to her? I also want to learn from her.\n[00:29 - 00:32] Speaker B: Sure. Come with me this Saturday.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or logically follows the previous one.\n- Speaker B's initial response (00:03-00:09) directly answers the question about learning duration and provides relevant context about the teacher.\n- Speaker A's follow-up (00:08-00:12) builds on the mention of \"Royal Academy\" and asks a pertinent question about continuing with the teacher.\n- Speaker B's subsequent responses (00:13-00:15, 00:21-00:24) are direct answers or elaborations that maintain the topic.\n- Speaker A's repeated question about the teacher being from the UK (00:15-00:20) is a slight re-confirmation but still coherent.\n- The conversation logically progresses from asking about piano learning to inquiring about the teacher and eventually asking for an introduction, demonstrating strong topic coherence.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses, topic shifts without proper transition, or logical inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap detected: Speaker B's turn ends at 00:09, while Speaker A's turn begins at 00:08. This results in a 1-second overlap (00:08 - 00:09). This is considered a brief overlap and is often natural in conversation, not an \"extended overlap\" that would disrupt fluency. The prompt states that \"brief overlaps are acceptable.\"\n- **Pauses:**\n    - A 1-second pause between Speaker A (00:00-00:02) and Speaker B (00:03-00:09).\n    - A 1-second pause between Speaker A (00:08-00:12) and Speaker B (00:13-00:15).\n    - A 1-second pause between Speaker A (00:15-00:20) and Speaker B (00:21-00:24).\nAll other transitions are immediate (0-second pause or immediate turn-take). These 1-second pauses are brief and natural, allowing for processing and turn-taking without feeling prolonged or awkward. There are no \"long pauses\" that would negatively impact the flow.\nOverall, the turn-taking is smooth, and the conversation flows naturally without significant interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--353",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Good morning.\n[00:01 - 00:01] Speaker B: Good morning.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker A: What does the paper say?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Nothing much, the same old stuff. A lot of bad news as usual, but\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Speaking of bad news, did they mention anything about the economy? It's been on my mind lately.\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker B: Not specifically in this edition, but they did talk about the weather. Sunny and mild today, cloudy and rainy tomorrow.\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker A: Did they find those bank robbers?\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B: Not yet. They were holding two men in Ohio, but they let them go after\n[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker A: Wait, did they mention why they were suspects in the first place?\n[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker B: Oh, right. They were suspected because they matched the description, but they weren't the criminals after all.\n[00:34 - 00:39] Speaker A: What about the sports page? What were the scores of last night's games?\n[00:39 - 00:41] Speaker B: Here's the paper; you can read them yourself.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct answers to Speaker A's questions about the newspaper's contents. Speaker A's questions are logically connected to the overall theme (\"What does the paper say?\"), even when shifting topics (from general bad news to economy, then to bank robbers, and finally to sports). The interjections by Speaker A, such as \"Speaking of bad news...\" and \"Wait, did they mention why...\", show active listening and build logically on Speaker B's previous statements or incomplete thoughts, maintaining coherence. The final turn from Speaker B, \"Here's the paper; you can read them yourself,\" is a perfectly logical and coherent way to conclude the discussion about the paper's contents.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two instances of brief overlaps ([00:06 - 00:12] where Speaker A overlaps Speaker B, and [00:24 - 00:28] where Speaker A overlaps Speaker B). In both cases, Speaker A interjects naturally, either to elaborate on a point Speaker B mentioned (\"bad news\") or to ask for immediate clarification. These overlaps are short (approximately 1 second each) and do not disrupt the flow of conversation; instead, they indicate active engagement and natural conversational rhythm. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses between turns, contributing to a fluid and natural-sounding interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--24101",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, have you seen my wallet? I can't seem to find it anywhere.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: No, I haven't seen it. When was the last time you had it?\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: I had it this morning when I went to buy breakfast. I must have left it at the counter when\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: Wait, did you check your car? Sometimes things slip out of pockets while driving.\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker A: Oh, good point. I should check the car first. But if it's not there, I went to the convenience store on the corner.\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B: Okay, well why don't we go back there and see if they found it?\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker A: Yeah, that's a good idea. Thanks for coming with me.\n[00:31 - 00:32] Speaker B: No problem, let's go.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, contributing to the central topic of finding the lost wallet.\n- Speaker B's initial question \"When was the last time you had it?\" is a pertinent follow-up to Speaker A's problem.\n- Speaker A's response provides the necessary context.\n- Speaker B's suggestion to check the car is a logical step in problem-solving.\n- Speaker A acknowledges the suggestion and provides the next potential location if the first fails, showing clear thought process.\n- Speaker B then proposes a practical solution based on Speaker A's information.\n- The closing remarks are also relevant, showing agreement and commitment to the proposed action.\nThere are no instances of topic drift or irrelevant contributions, maintaining excellent topic coherence and logical consistency throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick, with most turns starting immediately after the previous one ends (e.g., A ends at 00:04, B starts at 00:04; A ends at 00:12, B starts at 00:12). Where there are short gaps (e.g., 00:07-00:08, 00:26-00:27, 00:30-00:31), they are 1 second in duration, which is natural and acceptable, not prolonged.\n- **Overlaps:** The timestamps indicate precise turn-taking with no extended overlaps. Speaker B starting at 00:12 right as Speaker A's sentence cuts off at 00:12 could suggest a very brief, natural overlap or interruption, but it's not prolonged or disruptive, and fits the criteria of \"brief overlaps... are acceptable.\" This contributes to the natural flow of conversation rather than hindering it.\nOverall, the dialogue flows smoothly, mimicking natural conversation without awkward silences or disruptive overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--79768",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, I'm sorry about stealing your letter.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: What? You stole my — I\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have done that.\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: Why would you do that? I trusted — you\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: I don't know. I was just curious, I guess.\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker B: That's not a good enough reason! You betrayed my trust and now I don't know if I can ever trust you again.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates with an apology for a specific action (stealing a letter). Speaker B's immediate reaction (\"What? You stole my — I\") is a natural expression of surprise and disbelief, directly responsive to Speaker A's confession. Speaker A's follow-up apology and confirmation (\"Yeah, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have done that.\") are relevant acknowledgments. Speaker B's question (\"Why would you do that? I trusted — you\") is a logical and emotionally appropriate follow-up, reflecting betrayal. Speaker A's response (\"I don't know. I was just curious, I guess.\") directly addresses the \"why\" question, even if the reason is unsatisfactory. Finally, Speaker B's concluding statement (\"That's not a good enough reason! You betrayed my trust and now I don't know if I can ever trust you again.\") directly refutes A's justification and expresses the profound impact of the betrayal. The entire conversation maintains logical consistency and stays coherent on the central topic of the stolen letter and the resulting breach of trust.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural and appropriate for the given context of a confession and a heated reaction. There are two instances of overlaps:\n1.  **[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: What? You stole my — I**\n    **[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have done that.**\n    This is a brief overlap (lasting only 1 second, from 0:04 to 0:05). Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is mid-sentence, which is a very common and natural occurrence in emotionally charged conversations, indicating Speaker A's eagerness to re-apologize or interject. It's not an extended or harmful overlap.\n2.  **[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: Why would you do that? I trusted — you**\n    **[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: I don't know. I was just curious, I guess.**\n    This is also a brief overlap at 0:09. Speaker A begins to answer immediately as Speaker B is trailing off or finishing their sentence. This is typical of fluid conversation where one speaker anticipates the end of another's turn, especially when a direct question has been posed. It doesn't disrupt comprehension.\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and natural, reflecting the tension and directness of the conversation. The brief overlaps and quick turns contribute to a realistic and fluent interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--44980",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm really concerned about online privacy. I don't want to risk opening an email that could contain personal information that\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: Why not? What's the big deal? I mean, unless you're constantly getting spammed, most emails are safe, right?\n[00:13 - 00:28] Speaker A: Well, for one thing, I don't know who might be able to access my account if I open an email from someone I don't know. And secondly, even if the email is from someone I trust, there's no guarantee that it hasn't been hacked or compromised by malware\n[00:27 - 00:35] Speaker B: But isn't it a bit extreme to avoid opening emails entirely? I mean, you're missing out on a lot of important communication by doing that.\n[00:35 - 00:44] Speaker A: That's true. But I'd rather err on the side of caution when it comes to my personal information. I just feel it's better to be safe than sorry.\n[00:44 - 00:56] Speaker B: Fair enough. But just so you know, there are ways to protect yourself from getting hacked even if you do open emails from unknown senders. For example, you can install a virus scanner and make sure your firewall is turned on.\n[00:56 - 01:02] Speaker A: Yeah, that's a good idea. I'll definitely look into doing that. Thanks for the advice!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A introduces a concern about online privacy, which Speaker B immediately challenges, prompting Speaker A to elaborate on their reasoning. Speaker B then logically follows up by questioning the extreme nature of Speaker A's caution. Speaker A acknowledges this but reasserts their stance, leading Speaker B to offer practical solutions. Speaker A accepts these solutions, concluding the conversation naturally. Each turn builds on the previous one, maintaining a clear and relevant progression of the discussion about email safety and online privacy. There are no instances of speakers going off-topic or making illogical statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits excellent fluency. Pauses between turns are consistently minimal, often immediate (0 seconds) or very short (1 second, e.g., 0:12-0:13). This indicates a natural, back-and-forth conversational rhythm. There is one instance of a brief overlap: Speaker B starts at 0:27 while Speaker A concludes their turn at 0:28. This is a 1-second overlap, which falls under the category of \"brief overlaps\" deemed acceptable in natural conversation, rather than a \"prolonged\" or \"extended\" overlapping turn that would hinder fluency. Overall, the timing and turn-taking contribute to a highly natural and effective interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--274",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Well, I'm glad I had a chance to see these samples, but I'm really not in a position to make a decision right now because\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, Mr. Grant, but I was wondering if there's any specific concern you have about the samples that I could address right now?\n[00:14 - 00:23] Speaker A: It's not about the samples themselves. I just need more time to review them in the context of our current needs. Would you like me to leave the samples with you so\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker B: Yes, please leave them. That way, I can take a closer look and discuss them with my team before we talk again next week.\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker A: Great, I'll do that. Thanks for your time, Mr. Grant. I'll talk to you next week.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n*   **Speaker A (00:00-00:08)** expresses a need for more time to make a decision.\n*   **Speaker B (00:06-00:13)**, while interrupting, immediately asks a relevant question to address the hesitation (\"any specific concern... I could address right now?\"), showing active listening and an attempt to overcome the objection.\n*   **Speaker A (00:14-00:23)** directly answers B's question, clarifying that the issue isn't the samples themselves but the need for contextual review. They then logically propose leaving the samples, which directly follows from their stated need for review.\n*   **Speaker B (00:22-00:28)** accepts the offer and provides a clear, logical reason for doing so (\"take a closer look and discuss them with my team before we talk again next week\"), reinforcing the mutual goal of review.\n*   **Speaker A (00:29-00:34)** agrees and concludes the conversation politely, demonstrating understanding and acceptance of the plan.\n\nEach turn directly builds on the previous one, showing a coherent and logical progression of the conversation. The participants are addressing each other's points effectively and working towards a clear resolution.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with some minor, natural overlaps rather than harmful prolonged ones or long pauses.\n*   **Overlap 1 (00:06 - 00:08):** Speaker B overlaps Speaker A for approximately 2 seconds. However, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which mitigates the negative impact and indicates awareness. This type of interruption can be a natural attempt to quickly address a potential issue.\n*   **Overlap 2 (00:22 - 00:23):** Speaker B overlaps Speaker A for approximately 1 second. This is a very brief overlap, typical of natural conversation where one speaker anticipates the end of the other's sentence and jumps in slightly early, especially when agreeing or confirming. It does not disrupt the flow or cause confusion.\n*   There are no long pauses between turns. The conversation flows smoothly from one speaker to the next, indicating good conversational pacing.\n\nThe detected overlaps are brief and either acknowledged or natural, and do not significantly impede communication or understanding.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--627",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: How are you doing?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm doing pretty great! I just bought a new gaming console.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: Oh, nice! Are you into retro games?\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker B: What's retro?\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker A: Retro games are games from the 80s and 90s. They are usually slower paced, have more colorful palettes, and are better at providing\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker B: Sorry, I'm curious, what do you mean by \"better designed\"? Do you think they have superior gameplay compared to modern games?\n[00:23 - 00:37] Speaker A: Well, some people believe that retro games have a certain charm and simplicity in their design that makes them timeless. However, I was going to say that you can play modern games on retro gaming consoles too. Some modern\n[00:35 - 00:42] Speaker B: Oh, that's interesting! But before we move on, can you recommend any specific retro games for a beginner like me?\n[00:42 - 00:53] Speaker A: Sure, I can recommend a few classics like Super Mario Bros., The Legend of Zelda, and Sonic the Hedgehog. They are great starting points for anyone new to retro gaming.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance.\n*   **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B's initial response about buying a console is a natural follow-up to \"How are you doing?\". Speaker A's subsequent questions about \"retro games\" and explanations are directly prompted by B's statements or questions. Speaker B's clarifications (\"What's retro?\", \"what do you mean by 'better designed'?\") are perfectly logical and keep the conversation focused on understanding. Speaker B's request for recommendations (\"can you recommend any specific retro games?\") is a coherent progression after understanding what retro games are. Speaker A's final response provides direct answers to B's request.\n*   **Topic Coherence:** The conversation maintains a clear topic: gaming, specifically retro gaming. Even when Speaker B asks for clarification or Speaker A elaborates, the discussion remains within this defined scope. There are no abrupt, uncontextualized topic shifts. The transitions are smooth, like moving from the general concept of retro games to specific recommendations.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There are brief overlaps at [00:16 - 00:17] (1 second) and [00:35 - 00:37] (2 seconds). These are explicitly \"brief overlaps\" as per the evaluation criteria and are not \"extended overlaps.\" In both cases, Speaker B interrupts Speaker A to ask for clarification or to steer the conversation, which is a common and natural characteristic of engaged dialogue. The interruptions are not prolonged and do not disrupt the flow or understanding.\n*   **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses are minimal (1 second or immediate continuation), indicating a very natural and responsive conversational rhythm. For example, the transition from Speaker B at [00:42] to Speaker A at [00:42] is seamless.\nThe presence of brief, functional overlaps and the absence of long pauses contribute to a highly natural and fluent interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--57998",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Wow, what a party! I'm so glad you had me over.\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: Thank you so much for coming and for helping with the cleanup! I really appreciate the extra\n[00:07 - 00:18] Speaker A: It's no problem at all. I know how much work parties can be, so I'm happy to help out however I can. Plus, it'll give us a chance to chat and catch up on everything that's been going on.\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B: That sounds great. Let me just grab a few things from the other room and we can get started.\n[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker A: So, what's new with you? I feel like I haven't seen you in forever!\n[00:28 - 00:37] Speaker B: I know, it feels like it's been ages. Well, let's see...I recently got a new job, my partner and I just moved into a new place, and we're thinking about possibly expanding\n[00:36 - 00:42] Speaker A: Oh wow, a new job and a new place? That's a lot of change! How are you settling in?\n[00:42 - 00:52] Speaker B: We're getting there, but it's been a bit overwhelming with everything happening so fast. And about starting a family, we're still in the early stages of planning, but it's definitely on our minds.\n[00:52 - 00:58] Speaker A: That's huge! I'm really happy for you both. Starting a family is such a big step.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building coherently on the conversation.\n*   Speaker A's initial gratitude is met by Speaker B's appreciation and offer of help.\n*   Speaker A's offer to help and suggestion to chat is followed by Speaker B's agreement and brief explanation.\n*   Speaker A's question \"what's new with you?\" directly elicits Speaker B's life updates.\n*   Speaker A then picks up on key points from Speaker B's updates (\"new job and a new place\") and asks a follow-up question.\n*   Speaker B answers the question and elaborates on a previously mentioned topic (\"expanding\" / \"starting a family\").\n*   Finally, Speaker A responds with an empathetic and congratulatory remark, directly related to Speaker B's revelation.\nThe topic remains consistent (catching up on life), and there are no instances of irrelevant or illogical responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits high interactional fluency.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are a couple of brief overlaps, specifically:\n    *   Speaker A starts at [0:07] while Speaker B ends at [0:08], a 1-second overlap.\n    *   Speaker A starts at [0:36] while Speaker B ends at [0:37], another 1-second overlap.\n    These are minor and represent natural conversational rhythm, often indicative of active listening or eagerness to respond, rather than prolonged or disruptive overlaps. They fall under \"brief overlaps\" which are acceptable.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The transitions between speakers are smooth and natural, typically 1 second or less, which is standard for a flowing conversation.\nOverall, the pacing is natural and contributes to a smooth and fluent interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--130762",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Tyrone, I'm so glad you made it on time for your date! I was getting worried that you were going to be late and\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B: Oh, sorry about that! I had a lot to do today and lost track of time. But hey, I managed to get here, right?\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker A: That's okay, I'm just glad you made it. So, how are you feeling? Nervous?\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: A little bit, but I'm mostly just excited. I've been looking forward to this date all week, and\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker A: Wait, did you remember to bring the flowers? You mentioned you wanted to surprise her with those.\n[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker B: Oh, yes! I got them right here. I hope she likes them. Anyway, as I was saying, I've been looking forward to this date all week.\n[00:36 - 00:43] Speaker A: Well, you look great so I'm sure she's going to love you. Just relax and be yourself and you'll have a great time.\n[00:43 - 00:48] Speaker B: Thanks, Caileigh. I appreciate your help getting me ready for this date tonight. Wish me luck!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous turn, maintaining topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's worry about him being late.\n- Speaker A then transitions smoothly to asking about Speaker B's feelings.\n- Speaker B answers this question directly.\n- Speaker A's interruption regarding the flowers, while a shift, is logically consistent within the context of preparing for a date, showing an urgent thought related to the shared context.\n- Speaker B handles the interruption by answering the question and then attempting to return to his original point (\"Anyway, as I was saying...\"), demonstrating good conversational flow and understanding of the preceding turns.\n- Speaker A's subsequent encouragement is a natural follow-up, and Speaker B's final gratitude concludes the interaction appropriately.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses or logical inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural.\n- There are two brief overlaps (1 second each): [00:06 - 00:07] and [00:23 - 00:24]. These are very short and common in natural speech, often indicating active listening, eagerness to respond, or spontaneous interjection (as with Speaker A remembering the flowers). They do not qualify as \"prolonged overlapping turns\" which would be harmful to fluency.\n- There are two brief pauses (1 second each): [00:18 - 00:19] and [00:29 - 00:30]. These are also very short and are well within the acceptable range for natural conversation, allowing for thought processing or a natural beat before responding. They do not constitute \"long pauses between speaker turns.\"\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking feel authentic and smooth, demonstrating excellent interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--122009",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, it's been a while! How have you been?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: I've been good. Just hanging out, doing some shopping. You know how it is,\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Oh, did you find anything interesting while shopping? I've been looking for some new books lately.\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker B: Not really, just the usual stuff. You know, school and work and hanging out with friends. Nothing too exciting.\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A: That sounds about right. I've been busy with school and work too. But it's nice to take a\n[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker B: Speaking of work, how's your new project going? I remember you mentioned it last time we talked.\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker A: Oh, the project is going well! But I was just saying, it's nice to have a break and see you.\n[00:35 - 00:38] Speaker B: Absolutely! It's always good to catch up with old friends.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial response directly answers Speaker A's \"How have you been?\".\n- Speaker A picks up on Speaker B's mention of \"shopping\" and asks a relevant follow-up question.\n- Speaker B answers the shopping question and then elaborates on general life activities, which is coherent with the initial \"how have you been\" theme.\n- Speaker A relates to Speaker B's activities (\"school and work\").\n- Speaker B smoothly transitions the conversation by picking up on \"work\" to ask about Speaker A's project, demonstrating good recall of past conversations.\n- Speaker A answers the project question and then seamlessly loops back to their interrupted thought about enjoying the break, showing good conversational memory and flow.\n- Speaker B's final statement directly acknowledges Speaker A's sentiment, providing a natural conclusion to the segment.\nThere are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is very good.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps identified.\n    - [00:06 - 00:07] Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing their sentence. This is a very common, brief, and natural overlap indicating active listening and anticipatory turn-taking, not a prolonged or harmful one.\n    - [00:24 - 00:24] Speaker B starts speaking right as Speaker A trails off with \"take a\". This is also a brief, natural interjection, where Speaker B picks up on a keyword (\"work\") from A's unfinished sentence. It's a typical characteristic of dynamic conversation and not an extended or disruptive overlap.\n- **Pauses:** The pauses between turns (e.g., 1-second pauses at [00:02 - 00:03], [00:18 - 00:19], [00:28 - 00:29], [00:34 - 00:35]) are all short and natural, allowing for processing and turn-switching without feeling awkward or prolonged.\nThe conversation flows smoothly with appropriate turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--481",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What do you like to give people?\n[00:02 - 00:10] Speaker B: I like to make meaningful gifts to people. Things that will last. That's why I try to go with technology gifts. My girlfriend got me a really cool gift the other day.\n[00:10 - 00:11] Speaker A: What did she get you?\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker B: She got me this great bluetooth speaker. I love using it\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but what brand is it? I'm looking for a good bluetooth speaker myself.\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker B: It's a Bose speaker. I was saying I love music.\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker A: That's nice. What kind of music do you listen to?\n[00:27 - 00:29] Speaker B: I listen to a lot of electronic dance music!\n[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker A: I love EDM too! Any chance you would be interested in coming to see me play tennis sometime?\n[00:36 - 00:38] Speaker B: I think it's too far away for me to make it\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker A: Hold on, are you saying you don't have any means of transportation or is it just the distance?\n[00:43 - 00:50] Speaker B: It's mainly the distance. But you never know! Let me know if you have any other questions about New York City. I would love to show you around!\n[00:50 - 00:52] Speaker A: Cool, thanks Alice.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue generally demonstrates good response relevance and logical consistency for most turns.\n- Speaker B's initial response about \"meaningful technology gifts\" is highly relevant to Speaker A's question about giving gifts.\n- Speaker A's follow-up questions (\"What did she get you?\", \"What brand is it?\") are direct and logically consistent with Speaker B's previous statements about a gift.\n- Speaker B's answers about the Bluetooth speaker and its brand are also directly relevant.\n- Speaker A's pivot to \"What kind of music do you listen to?\" is a logical continuation after Speaker B mentions \"I love music.\"\n- Speaker B's response about \"electronic dance music\" is directly relevant.\n\nHowever, there are two instances where topic coherence is strained:\n1.  **[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker A: \"I love EDM too! Any chance you would be interested in coming to see me play tennis sometime?\"** While the first part acknowledges Speaker B's music preference, the abrupt transition to inviting Speaker B to play tennis is a significant topic shift. It lacks logical flow from the preceding discussion about music. While people do change topics in conversation, this specific shift feels unprompted and less coherent than other transitions in the dialogue.\n2.  **[00:43 - 00:50] Speaker B: \"It's mainly the distance. But you never know! Let me know if you have any other questions about New York City. I would love to show you around!\"** Speaker B's sudden offer to show Speaker A around New York City appears out of context. New York City has not been mentioned previously, and while it might be an attempt to provide context for the \"distance\" issue or make a social offer, it significantly breaks topic coherence without any bridging statement.\n\nDespite these two instances, the rest of the conversation maintains good coherence. The issues are more about abrupt topic branching rather than complete irrelevance or nonsensical responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is consistently good.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Most transitions are immediate or involve only a 1-second pause (e.g., [00:01]-[00:02], [00:11]-[00:12], [00:26]-[00:27], [00:29]-[00:30], [00:42]-[00:43]). These brief pauses are natural and do not hinder the flow of conversation.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief, acknowledged overlaps, which are acceptable and contribute to a natural conversational feel:\n    - **[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker A's \"Sorry to jump in...\"** overlaps Speaker B's \"I love using it\" for about 1 second. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the overlap, which indicates natural eagerness to ask a relevant follow-up question.\n    - **[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker A's \"Hold on...\"** overlaps Speaker B's \"to make it\" for about 1 second. Again, Speaker A acknowledges the interjection, seeking clarification.\nThese brief, acknowledged overlaps are not prolonged or disruptive and are typical of fluent, engaged conversation.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking are smooth and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 4
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--151",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: What's up?\n[00:01 - 00:07] Speaker B: I guess there is some kind of virus seeking into my computer, I can't send out this e-mail. Do you have the number of the text I was\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but before we talk about the text port, do you mind if I have a look at your computer?\n[00:14 - 00:15] Speaker B: Of course not, I appreciate that.\n[00:16 - 00:24] Speaker A: Well, it has nothing to do with a virus. The problem is your attachment is a bit larger. It has exceeded the e-mail capacity.\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: I see. What can I do now? Oh, by the way, what was the number you were going to ask for earlier?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates good response relevance.\nSpeaker B immediately brings up a problem (email/virus) in response to Speaker A's \"What's up?\". Speaker A then appropriately prioritizes the immediate technical issue by offering to look at the computer, effectively postponing Speaker B's secondary query about a \"text number\". Speaker A then provides a clear diagnosis, directly addressing the initial \"virus\" concern. Speaker B's final turn logically follows up on the diagnosis (\"What can I do now?\") and then loops back to the previously deferred topic (\"Oh, by the way, what was the number you were going to ask for earlier?\").\nThere is a minor logical inconsistency in Speaker B's final statement, as Speaker B was the one who initially brought up the \"number of the text I was\", not Speaker A. Speaker B's phrasing \"what was the number you were going to ask for earlier?\" misattributes the origin of the query. However, this is a minor human-like error in recall and does not significantly derail the topic coherence or logical flow of the overall conversation, which otherwise progresses naturally from problem identification to diagnosis and next steps, while keeping a secondary topic in mind. Overall, the responses are highly relevant and the conversation maintains good topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits high interactional fluency.\nThere is a brief overlap at [00:06 - 00:07] where Speaker A cuts in (\"Sorry to cut in\"). This overlap is explicitly acknowledged and managed by Speaker A, making it a natural and polite interruption rather than a disruptive one. It serves to redirect the conversation effectively to the primary issue, which enhances flow.\nAnother brief overlap occurs at [00:24] where Speaker B starts speaking just as Speaker A finishes. This is a very common and natural turn-taking behavior, indicating attentiveness and readiness to respond, rather than a prolonged or harmful overlap.\nThere are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The dialogue flows smoothly and responsively from one speaker to the next.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--420",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hi!\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Hi, how are you doing?\n[00:02 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm doing well. I just got back from the grocery store with a cart full of food. What's new with you?\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: We just got back from a soccer game. I wish I could eat more vegetables.\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: I know, I'm the same way! Do you like to eat vegetables?\n[00:17 - 00:21] Speaker B: I love them. But I wish there was a way to eat more without feeling hungry all the time.\n[00:22 - 00:23] Speaker A: Do you use any meal\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B: Supplements? Yes, I take a supplement that contains vitamins and minerals.\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker A: Really? I'll have to look into that. How do you like taking them?\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker B: Well, I take the same ones every day so it's not too bad. By the way, what were you going to ask about using earlier?\n[00:38 - 00:43] Speaker A: Oh, I was going to ask if you use any specific type of supplement or brand that you would recommend.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance throughout.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:**\n    *   The initial greetings and follow-up questions are standard and logical.\n    *   Speaker A's update about the grocery store leads naturally to Speaker B's update about the soccer game.\n    *   Speaker B's statement \"I wish I could eat more vegetables\" is a slight pivot but is logically followed by Speaker A's \"I'm the same way! Do you like to eat vegetables?\", which maintains coherence around the food/health topic.\n    *   Speaker B's elaboration on the vegetable point (\"wish there was a way to eat more without feeling hungry all the time\") is consistent with their previous statement.\n    *   Speaker A's partial question \"Do you use any meal\" is clearly leading to a question about supplements or meal aids, which Speaker B correctly anticipates and answers (\"Supplements? Yes, I take a supplement that contains vitamins and minerals.\"). This demonstrates excellent logical connection and predictive ability from Speaker B.\n    *   Speaker A's follow-up questions about supplements are direct and relevant.\n    *   Crucially, Speaker B's turn at [00:31 - 00:37] not only answers A's question but also proactively brings the conversation back to A's earlier interrupted question (\"By the way, what were you going to ask about using earlier?\"). This shows high attentiveness and commitment to fully addressing previous points, enhancing the overall logical consistency and flow of the conversation.\n    *   Speaker A's final answer to B's clarifying question is perfectly consistent with the interrupted thought.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The conversation flows naturally from general greetings to personal updates, then narrows down to food/vegetables, and finally to supplements, with smooth transitions. The return to the interrupted question further solidifies the topic coherence by ensuring no hanging threads.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency.\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There is one clear overlap at [00:22 - 00:26]. Speaker A begins to ask \"Do you use any meal\" at 0:22, and Speaker B simultaneously starts speaking at 0:22, completing A's thought with \"Supplements?\" and then providing an answer. This is a brief and collaborative overlap, where Speaker B anticipates Speaker A's question. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps... are acceptable.\" This overlap is not prolonged and rather indicates active listening and engagement, contributing to natural conversational rhythm. There are no other significant or prolonged overlaps.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The turn-taking is consistently quick and responsive, indicating high engagement from both participants. The time markers show quick responses (e.g., A finishes at 0:08, B starts at 0:09; A finishes at 0:12, B starts at 0:13, etc.).\nOverall, the pacing is natural and conversational, without disruptive pauses or drawn-out overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--103",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: John? It's Susan Miller.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Hi, Susan. What's up?\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker A: Do you know where that memo about office procedures is? I want to give my secretary a quick overview\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker B: Oh, Susan, speaking of office procedures, did you hear about the new changes HR is implementing next month?\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: No, I haven't. But I still need that memo. Do you have any idea where it might be?\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B: I'm sorry. I have no idea. I haven't seen that for ages.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good logical consistency and topic coherence overall.\n- Speaker A initiates the conversation with a clear purpose and consistently attempts to steer it back to that purpose (finding the memo).\n- Speaker B initially introduces a tangential topic (\"new changes HR is implementing\") by latching onto Speaker A's mention of \"office procedures.\" While this is a slight digression, it's explicitly linked to the previous statement (\"speaking of office procedures\") and not completely out of context. It's a natural, albeit slightly distracting, conversational maneuver.\n- Speaker A acknowledges Speaker B's digression briefly (\"No, I haven't\") but immediately re-emphasizes their original request (\"But I still need that memo. Do you have any idea where it might be?\"), demonstrating strong topic coherence from their side.\n- Speaker B then directly addresses Speaker A's original question, finally providing the information requested (or lack thereof).\nThe temporary topic shift by Speaker B is not a significant issue as it is brief and Speaker A effectively redirects the conversation. The dialogue ultimately resolves Speaker A's query, even if it took a minor detour.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The turns are exchanged promptly and naturally.\n- There is one brief overlap identified: Speaker B starts speaking at [00:09] while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence at [00:10]. This is a 1-second overlap. According to the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this falls into that category. It does not hinder understanding or flow.\n- No extended overlaps were detected.\nThe conversation flows smoothly and naturally.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--327",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Can I help you?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yes, would you mind telling me something about the house?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: Well, it has a nice living room, a large dining room and three comfortable bedrooms that\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: Sorry, I just want to clarify—how large is the dining room exactly?\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker A: The dining room is about 20 by 15 feet, so it's quite spacious. But as I was saying, the house also has three comfortable bedrooms.\n[00:21 - 00:23] Speaker B: It sounds good. What about the kitchen?\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: Oh, it is quite modern. It has a fridge, an electric stove and a microwave\n[00:28 - 00:30] Speaker B: And does the kitchen have enough storage space?\n[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker A: Yes, plenty of cabinets and a pantry as well. I was also going to mention that it includes a dishwasher.\n[00:37 - 00:38] Speaker B: Are there any washrooms?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A provides information about the house, and Speaker B asks relevant follow-up questions or requests clarification. For example, Speaker B's interruption at [00:08 - 00:12] to clarify the dining room size is perfectly relevant and handled well by Speaker A, who answers and then returns to their original point. Subsequent questions about the kitchen ([00:21 - 00:23], [00:28 - 00:30]) and washrooms ([00:37 - 00:38]) maintain topic coherence within the context of discussing a house's features. There are no irrelevant tangents or confusing shifts in topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are a couple of brief overlaps, such as at [00:08 - 00:12] and [00:28 - 00:30], where Speaker B begins speaking before Speaker A has fully completed their sentence. Both overlaps are very short (1 second each) and seem to represent natural conversational turn-taking, where one speaker anticipates the end of a thought or interjects for immediate clarification. These are not \"extended overlaps\" that would be harmful to the flow. Similarly, the pauses between turns are consistently short (e.g., 1 second between [00:12] and [00:13], [00:23] and [00:24], [00:36] and [00:37]), which are natural and do not constitute \"long pauses.\" The conversation flows smoothly without any awkward silences or disruptive interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--56174",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, I'm really sorry about your drink. I didn't mean to drop it.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: It's okay, accidents happen.\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: I feel really bad though. I know you were looking forward to that coffee. I\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker B: I appreciate that, but really, it's not a big deal. What I'm more concerned about is whether you're okay. You seemed a bit distracted.\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker A: Oh, thanks for asking. I was just thinking about something else, but I'll be more careful next time with your drinks!\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker B: Alright, if you're sure then I'll let it go. But next time be more careful with my drinks!\n[00:31 - 00:33] Speaker A: Sorry man, won't happen again.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate excellent relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates with an apology for an accident. Speaker B's response is not only relevant by accepting the apology but also shows empathy and shifts the focus to Speaker A's well-being, which is a natural and positive conversational turn. Speaker A then appropriately addresses B's concern before bringing the topic back to the initial subject of the spilled drink. The subsequent turns continue this coherent and logical exchange, ending with a playful warning and a final assurance. The topic coherence is maintained throughout, with a natural progression from apology to concern to resolution.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are no extended overlaps in the conversation. A brief overlap occurs between [00:10 - 00:11] where Speaker B begins to speak while Speaker A is finishing a sentence. This overlap is only 1 second long and is considered brief and acceptable according to the evaluation criteria, as it does not disrupt the flow but rather indicates a natural, eager interjection by Speaker B to reassure Speaker A. There are also no long pauses detected between speaker turns, contributing to a natural and continuous conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--83460",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, can we talk for a second?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yeah, what's up?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: I feel like you're always trying to take control.\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: I mean, it's like you're always trying to take over and be the boss. It's like you're always trying to usurp my authority.\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker B: What do you — I\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: I'm not trying to do that, I just want to make sure that things are done right.\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker A: But I'm the one in charge here, and I want to — make\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B: I get that, but can we at least agree that my input is valuable too? It's not about taking over, it's about making sure we all succeed.\n[00:28 - 00:37] Speaker A: Fine, if that's what you want then I'll back off. But I just want you to know that I'm only doing this because I think it's best for the team.\n[00:37 - 00:38] Speaker B: Thank you, Kiley.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates a clear complaint about Speaker B trying to take control. Speaker B's response directly addresses this accusation by defending their intent. The conversation then progresses naturally with Speaker A reasserting their authority and Speaker B offering a collaborative solution, which Speaker A ultimately accepts (with a caveat). Each turn logically follows the previous one, and the topic of control and authority is consistently maintained throughout the entire exchange. There are no instances of irrelevant or off-topic remarks, and the conversation flows coherently from complaint to resolution.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  At [00:07], Speaker B interjects (\"What do you — I\") while Speaker A is still elaborating on their point. This overlap lasts only about 1 second and represents a natural attempt by Speaker B to interrupt or object, which is common in a heated discussion or argument.\n2.  At [00:21], Speaker B begins their turn (\"I get that...\") while Speaker A is still finishing their previous sentence (\"...make\"). This overlap also lasts about 1 second. It signifies an eager or quick response, again natural in a dynamic conversation where speakers are engaged.\nNeither of these are \"extended overlaps\"; they are brief and do not hinder the flow or understanding of the conversation. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The turn-taking is swift and natural, reflecting a realistic and engaged interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--495",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'd like to buy some new workout clothes. Do you think they'd be helpful to me?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: I think they'd be great! What are you planning on wearing them for? Are\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: I usually only go to the gym during the weekends, so I just want something that's comfortable and sweat-wicking.\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker B: Do you wear them every time you go to the gym?\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: No, of course not. I'm not crazy. I only wear them when I'm going to the gym.\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker B: Oh good - I'm glad to hear that. Maybe I'll buy some for myself too!\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker A: Awesome! They're a great deal right now. I think I'll just buy a couple\n[00:30 - 00:31] Speaker B: Do you think they'll fit?\n[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker A: Not sure - I need to try some on first.\n[00:34 - 00:38] Speaker B: Maybe I should do the same. Do you know what size you're normally?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining topic coherence throughout the conversation about buying workout clothes.\n\n*   **[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A** introduces the topic and asks for advice.\n*   **[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B** provides a positive affirmation and seeks clarification on the usage, which is a relevant follow-up.\n*   **[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A** directly answers the clarification question, specifying the context (gym, weekends) and desired qualities (comfortable, sweat-wicking).\n*   **[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker B** asks a follow-up question related to the frequency of wear for the gym clothes, which, while perhaps a bit redundant, is still on-topic and a logical inquiry.\n*   **[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A** provides a clear, slightly humorous, and direct answer to Speaker B's question.\n*   **[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker B** responds appropriately to Speaker A's clarification and expresses personal interest, further engaging with the topic.\n*   **[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker A** acknowledges Speaker B's interest and offers more relevant information (deal, quantity).\n*   **[00:30 - 00:31] Speaker B** interjects with a relevant practical question about fit, which naturally arises when discussing buying clothes.\n*   **[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker A** directly answers the question about fit.\n*   **[00:34 - 00:38] Speaker B** mirrors Speaker A's approach and asks another pertinent question about sizing, keeping the conversation practical and relevant to the act of purchasing clothes.\n\nThe conversation flows naturally without any sudden topic shifts or illogical jumps. Each response contributes to the progression of the discussion.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. The dialogue features small pauses and brief overlaps that are characteristic of natural conversation and do not disrupt the flow or clarity.\n\n*   **Pauses:**\n    *   There's a 1-second pause between [00:04] (Speaker A) and [00:05] (Speaker B).\n    *   There's a 1-second pause between [00:13] (Speaker A) and [00:14] (Speaker B).\n    *   There's a 1-second pause between [00:31] (Speaker B) and [00:32] (Speaker A).\n    These are all brief and well within acceptable limits for natural conversation, not appearing as \"long pauses.\"\n\n*   **Overlaps:**\n    *   **[00:07 - 00:08]:** Speaker A begins their turn at 00:07 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:08. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B finishes with \"Are\" and Speaker A starts with \"I usually.\" This is a very common and brief overlap, often indicating engagement or anticipating the end of a turn.\n    *   **[00:30 - 00:31]:** Speaker B begins their turn at 00:30 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:31. This is also a 1-second overlap. Speaker A finishes \"a couple\" and Speaker B starts \"Do you think they'll fit?\". This is another brief and natural overlap, indicating an eager follow-up question.\n\nNeither the pauses nor the overlaps are \"prolonged\" or \"extended.\" They contribute to the natural, dynamic feel of the conversation rather than hindering it. The dialogue sounds like two people genuinely interacting.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--183",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Are you familiar with American-styled accounting?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: I am afraid not. I haven't worked in an American company so far.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: What are the most fundamental concepts underlying the accounting process?\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: The first is accounting entity, and the second is going concern. The third is the matching\n[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but could you explain a bit more about the \"going concern\" concept? I want to make sure I fully understand it.\n[00:23 - 00:36] Speaker B: Certainly! \"Going concern\" assumes that a business will continue to operate indefinitely, and it won't be forced to halt operations or liquidate its assets. But I didn't get to mention the measuring unit yet, which is another key concept.\n[00:36 - 00:40] Speaker A: Oh, right! Could you go back and explain the measuring unit as well?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation about accounting, and when Speaker B indicates unfamiliarity with \"American-styled accounting,\" Speaker A smoothly pivots to a more general question about \"fundamental concepts underlying the accounting process.\" Speaker B provides a direct and relevant answer. Speaker A's interruption to ask for clarification on \"going concern\" is logically consistent, showing active listening and a desire for understanding. Speaker B's explanation of \"going concern\" is accurate and then they cleverly bring the conversation back to their original list by mentioning \"measuring unit,\" which they hadn't gotten to. Speaker A's final question about \"measuring unit\" continues the logical progression of discussing these core concepts. The topic remains coherent throughout, and contributions build upon each other meaningfully.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is excellent. There is a brief 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn at 00:10 and Speaker B's turn at 00:11, which falls under \"small pauses\" and is acceptable. There is also a brief 1-second overlap from 00:15-00:16, where Speaker A interjects while Speaker B is still speaking. However, this is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker A (\"Sorry to jump in\"), making it a natural and fluent conversational move rather than a disruptive one. The dialogue flows smoothly, with quick turn-taking and no prolonged pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--88",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Ah, good morning, Ms. Ross, do come in.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Hello, Mr. Fisher. Nice to see you.\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker A: Face to face instead of on the phone, what? Haha. How are you?\n[00:12 - 00:13] Speaker B: Fine, thanks, very well.\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker A: Oh, do sit down. Would you like some coffee?\n[00:17 - 00:18] Speaker B: Oh, yes please, black.\n[00:19 - 00:20] Speaker A: Here you are.\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker B: Thanks. Well, how's it all going?\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker A: Oh, not too bad, we're just about to open a branch in New Zealand. Oh! ... I'm hoping to-- discuss the\n[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker B: Oh, New Zealand! That sounds exciting. But I wonder, have you already secured the necessary permits and local partnerships?\n[00:35 - 00:46] Speaker A: We're in the process of finalizing those, but I was actually about to mention that I'm hoping to justify the expansion to the marketing director. How's your little boy, has he started school yet?\n[00:47 - 00:49] Speaker B: Oh, yes, he's in the second year now.\n[00:49 - 00:54] Speaker A: What, already? Doesn't time fly! Is he enjoying it?\n[00:54 - 00:56] Speaker B: Very much, it's much more fun than being home!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Logical Consistency and Topic Coherence:**\n\n*   The initial greetings, offers of hospitality, and general pleasantries are logically consistent and flow well.\n*   Speaker B's question \"Well, how's it all going?\" naturally prompts Speaker A to give an update, which is about opening a branch in New Zealand.\n*   Speaker B's follow-up questions about permits and partnerships are highly relevant to Speaker A's announced expansion plans, demonstrating engagement and probing for necessary details in a business context.\n*   **Major Issue**: Speaker A's response at [00:35 - 00:46] starts relevantly (\"We're in the process of finalizing those, but I was actually about to mention that I'm hoping to justify the expansion to the marketing director.\"). This sets up the critical business purpose of the meeting. However, immediately after this, Speaker A abruptly switches topics to a personal question: \"How's your little boy, has he started school yet?\" This is a significant and jarring topic shift that breaks the logical flow of the business discussion. It feels out of place and potentially deflective, especially right after stating the core business objective. This constitutes a significant issue in topic coherence and logical consistency for Speaker A's turn.\n*   The subsequent turns by both speakers are relevant to the *new* personal topic, but the shift itself is the problem.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Extended Overlaps:**\n*   There is one overlap noted between [00:28 - 00:34] (Speaker B) and [00:22 - 00:29] (Speaker A). Specifically, Speaker B starts at 0:28 while Speaker A's turn ends at 0:29, indicating a 1-second overlap. Given Speaker A was in the middle of a thought (\"I'm hoping to-- discuss the\"), a brief 1-second overlap could be considered a natural interjection rather than a prolonged or harmful one. It doesn't disrupt the understanding.\n**Long Pauses:**\n*   No long pauses are evident in the provided timestamps. The conversation flows with typical conversational pacing.\nOverall, the interactional fluency is good, with only a brief, acceptable overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--96530",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, it's so good to see you! It feels like forever since we've had a\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: I know, right? It's been way too long. But it's great to see you again. How have you been?\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: I've been good. Busy with work and stuff, but good. How about you?\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker B: Same here. Work has been keeping me busy, but I can't complain. It's nice to finally have a chance to catch up with you again. So what's new with you?\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker A: Not much. Just the usual, you know. Work, home, repeat. What about you? Any big news?\n[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker B: Nope, nothing too exciting. Although I did just get back from my vacation in Hawaii. It was such a\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker A: Hawaii? Oh wow, that's amazing! I've always wanted to go there. How was it?\n[00:39 - 00:42] Speaker B: It was incredible! I'm already planning my next trip back.\n[00:43 - 00:47] Speaker A: Well, if you ever go again, let me know and maybe we can meet up there!\n[00:47 - 00:51] Speaker B: That would be great! I'll definitely keep that in mind. So what's been going on with work?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous utterance, maintaining a natural and coherent flow.\n- Speaker B responds appropriately to Speaker A's initial greeting and sentiment (\"I know, right? It's been way too long.\").\n- Both speakers engage in reciprocal \"how have you been?\" exchanges and topic shifts are smooth, such as Speaker B introducing their Hawaii vacation after discussing work, and Speaker A expressing immediate interest.\n- The conversation moves organically from general greetings to catching up, sharing news, and then returning to a previous topic (work) in a natural conversational loop. There are no sudden, unexplained topic changes or illogical replies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits high interactional fluency.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps identified: [00:03 - 00:04] and [00:33 - 00:34]. Both are only 1 second in duration. These are very short and natural, indicating active listening and enthusiasm rather than disruptive turn-taking. They fall under the \"brief overlaps\" category which are explicitly stated as acceptable. There are no extended or prolonged overlapping turns.\n- **Pauses:** There are two instances of 1-second pauses between turns ([00:38 - 00:39] and [00:42 - 00:43]). These are minimal and natural, providing just enough space for turn-taking without disrupting the flow. All other turn transitions are immediate or involve the brief, acceptable overlaps. There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\nThe conversational rhythm is smooth and natural, typical of an engaging, real-life discussion.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--503",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: How are you doing?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm doing great! I got my driver's license this week.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: That's amazing! How did you learn to drive so\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but I just remembered, did you find the written test difficult?\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker A: Not really, I studied a lot for it. I took lessons from a family friend.\n[00:16 - 00:17] Speaker B: You learned to drive?\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker A: Yeah, that was a big accomplishment for me.\n[00:21 - 00:23] Speaker B: Are you going to take some trips this summer?\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker A: Yeah, I was thinking about driving to the East Coast to visit a friend.\n[00:28 - 00:30] Speaker B: Oh cool! Do you have a place to stay along\n[00:30 - 00:34] Speaker A: Actually, before you finish, I was wondering if you have the route all planned out?\n[00:35 - 00:38] Speaker B: I have a rough idea, but I was planning to stay in his house.\n[00:38 - 00:43] Speaker A: That sounds like a solid plan. By the way, do you know anything about Martin Luther?\n[00:44 - 00:49] Speaker B: Yeah, Martin Luther was a famous reformer who fought for religious freedom in the 18th century.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **[00:16 - 00:17] Speaker B: You learned to drive?**: Speaker B's question implies surprise or a lack of attention to Speaker A's previous statement (\"I took lessons from a family friend\"), which clearly indicates A learned to drive. While not a major issue, it shows a slight disconnect.\n2.  **[000:30 - 00:34] Speaker A: Actually, before you finish, I was wondering if you have the route all planned out?**: Speaker A interrupts Speaker B (who was asking A about A's own trip) to ask Speaker B about *B's* route planning. There was no prior mention or context for Speaker B having a trip planned, making this question illogical and a non-sequitur. Speaker B then responds as if they *do* have an unmentioned trip (\"I have a rough idea...planning to stay in his house\"), further highlighting the unprompted and confusing topic shift initiated by Speaker A.\n3.  **[00:38 - 00:43] Speaker A: That sounds like a solid plan. By the way, do you know anything about Martin Luther?**: This is a severe and completely arbitrary topic shift. Speaker A abruptly introduces a historical figure with no logical connection to the preceding conversation about driving, trips, or accommodation. This demonstrates a complete breakdown in topic coherence and logical consistency, making the interaction feel unnatural and disjointed.\n\nThese issues, particularly the last two, constitute \"significant issues\" in Response Relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is relatively good in terms of timing and turn-taking.\n1.  **[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in...**: Speaker B briefly overlaps Speaker A but acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry to jump in\"). This is a brief, acknowledged overlap and falls within acceptable conversational norms, not indicating a prolonged or harmful issue.\n2.  **[00:30 - 00:34] Speaker A: Actually, before you finish...**: Speaker A also briefly overlaps Speaker B and acknowledges it (\"before you finish\"). Similar to the above, this is a brief, acknowledged overlap and does not constitute a significant fluency problem.\nThere are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. From a purely timing and overlap perspective, the interaction is fluent. The problems lie in the content and logical progression of the conversation, not the mechanics of turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--121917",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:11] Speaker A: I don't know, I just feel like I've never really had a true home. Everywhere we moved when I was growing up, it always felt temporary. Like we were just squatting there until we had to pack up\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B: Did you ever feel like you belonged anywhere?\n[00:12 - 00:24] Speaker A: No, not really. I always felt like an outsider looking in. Like I was just observing other people's lives and wondering what it would be like to have a real home and family of my own someday.\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker B: Well, you have that now. You're finally settled down in one place and you have a family of your own. You're home now, Oswaldo.\n[00:31 - 00:43] Speaker A: Yeah, I know. But sometimes I still feel like that little girl who was never really sure where she belonged. Like I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop and for us to have to move again, even\n[00:42 - 00:46] Speaker B: We're not going anywhere, Oswaldo. This is our home now. We're here for good.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance throughout. Speaker B consistently responds directly to Speaker A's expressed feelings and experiences.\n- Speaker A introduces the theme of feeling rootless and temporary (00:00-00:11).\n- Speaker B's question \"Did you ever feel like you belonged anywhere?\" (00:10-00:12) directly addresses the core sentiment of Speaker A's statement, showing active listening and topic coherence.\n- Speaker A elaborates on feeling like an outsider (00:12-00:24).\n- Speaker B then offers comfort and a direct counter-point, \"Well, you have that now. You're finally settled down... You're home now, Oswaldo.\" (00:25-00:31), directly acknowledging Speaker A's desire for a home and family. This response is logically consistent with the conversation's emotional arc.\n- Speaker A expresses lingering insecurity (00:31-00:43).\n- Speaker B immediately provides reassurance, \"We're not going anywhere, Oswaldo. This is our home now. We're here for good.\" (00:42-00:46), directly addressing Speaker A's fear of transience.\nAll turns build logically on the previous one, maintaining a clear and coherent conversation about belonging and home.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps.\n    - [00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B starts at 00:10 while Speaker A ends at 00:11. This is a 1-second overlap.\n    - [00:42 - 00:46] Speaker B starts at 00:42 while Speaker A ends at 00:43. This is a 1-second overlap.\nThese overlaps are brief and natural, indicative of an engaged and empathetic listener (Speaker B) who is anticipating the speaker's (Speaker A) completion or offering immediate reassurance. They do not disrupt the flow or clarity of the conversation.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected. The pause between Speaker A's turn ending at 00:24 and Speaker B's turn starting at 00:25 is only 1 second, which is a small and acceptable pause.\nThe timing of turns contributes to a very natural and flowing conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--92",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: How much is it to rent an economy car?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: $19 a day or $129 a week, unlimited mileage.\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker A: Could I have one for a week,\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but are you planning to return the car to the same location, or will it be a one-way rental?\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker A: I'll be returning it to the same location. Could I have one for tomorrow morning?\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B: Could I see your driver's license?\n[00:21 - 00:23] Speaker A: Sure, here it is.\n[00:23 - 00:25] Speaker B: Good. Now just complete this form.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Each speaker's turn builds directly on the previous one, leading to a clear progression of the car rental inquiry.\n\n*   Speaker B's initial response provides the exact information requested by Speaker A (cost of an economy car) and adds relevant details (unlimited mileage, weekly rate) that anticipate follow-up questions.\n*   Speaker A's next turn \"Could I have one for a week\" directly refers to the weekly rate provided.\n*   Speaker B's interjection, \"Sorry to interrupt, but are you planning to return the car to the same location, or will it be a one-way rental?\" is highly relevant to a car rental transaction, as this detail impacts pricing and logistics. It's a necessary clarification for the subsequent steps.\n*   Speaker A's response answers the clarification and re-states the request with an added detail (\"for tomorrow morning\"), keeping the conversation on track.\n*   The subsequent requests for a driver's license and to complete a form are standard, logical steps in a car rental process, maintaining strong relevance to the overall topic.\n\nThere are no instances of irrelevant information, topic shifts, or illogical responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good interactional fluency with minimal disruptions.\n\n*   There are no long pauses between turns. The gaps are typically 1 second or less, which is natural and contributes to a smooth flow.\n*   The only overlap occurs between [00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B and [00:07 - 00:09] Speaker A. Speaker B starts speaking at 0:08 while Speaker A is still speaking until 0:09, resulting in a 1-second overlap. However, Speaker B immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating awareness and politeness. This type of brief, acknowledged overlap is common in natural conversation and does not hinder understanding or conversational flow. It is not a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap but rather suggests a real-time, eager-to-assist interaction.\n*   No extended overlaps or noticeable long pauses are present that would impede the conversation's natural progression.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--19449",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I hate being stuck inside all day! I just want to go outside and feel the\n[00:03 - 00:14] Speaker B: I know, sweetie, but it's just too dangerous to go outside right now. Maybe later when the weather clears up a bit. Have you thought about doing something fun inside, like building a fort or—\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker A: But I'm so bored! There's nothing to do inside.\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker B: Well, you could always read a book or play a\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker A: That's not what I want to do. I just want to go outside.\n[00:24 - 00:30] Speaker B: Daeshawn, it's not safe to go outside right now. The weather is too bad. Maybe we can think of something else together?\n[00:30 - 00:32] Speaker A: But I'm so bored!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A consistently expresses their desire to go outside and their boredom with indoor activities. Speaker B consistently responds by explaining the safety concerns (weather, dangerous) and attempting to offer alternative indoor activities. The back-and-forth, though repetitive on Speaker A's part, accurately reflects a natural interaction, possibly between a parent and child, where one party is persistent in their desire. The topic coherence is maintained throughout, focusing on the dilemma of being stuck indoors versus the desire to go outside. Each turn logically follows the previous one, even when there is a disagreement or reiteration of a previous point.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are brief overlaps at `[00:03 - 00:14]` where Speaker B starts talking while Speaker A is finishing, and at `[00:20 - 00:23]` where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. These overlaps are short (approximately 1 second each) and are typical of natural, informal conversation, especially when one speaker is eager to interject or is feeling frustrated, as Speaker A appears to be. There is also a brief 1-second pause between `[00:23]` and `[00:24]`. None of these are prolonged pauses or extended overlaps. The conversational flow feels natural and unhindered by timing issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--115900",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I'm so glad that's done.\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Yeah, me too. I was getting a little worried there for a while.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: Why? What happened?\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: Oh, nothing really. I just thought you were taking longer than\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker A: Forever? Yeah, I know. I just wanted to make sure everything was perfect.\n[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker B: It's okay, I understand. And it looks like you did a great job.\n[00:18 - 00:22] Speaker A: Thanks. I just hope the boss likes the final\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: Do you think there's anything specific the boss might be looking for? I mean, any detail we might have missed?\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker A: I don't think so, but you never know with him. I really need this job to go well.\n[00:34 - 00:35] Speaker B: Don't worry, you'll be fine.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly follows from the previous one, building on the ongoing conversation.\n\n*   Speaker B's initial response \"Yeah, me too. I was getting a little worried there for a while\" directly addresses Speaker A's relief.\n*   Speaker A's \"Why? What happened?\" logically probes B's stated worry.\n*   Speaker B's explanation, though cut off, is clearly understood by Speaker A, who completes the thought (\"Forever?\"). This shows excellent contextual understanding and shared meaning-making.\n*   The conversation transitions smoothly from initial relief and worry about the duration of the task to concern about the boss's approval of the final product. Speaker B's question (\"Do you think there's anything specific the boss might be looking for?\") directly addresses Speaker A's expressed anxiety about the boss.\n*   Speaker A's subsequent elaboration (\"I don't think so, but you never know with him. I really need this job to go well.\") is a direct and logical follow-up.\n*   Finally, Speaker B's reassurance (\"Don't worry, you'll be fine.\") appropriately concludes the exchange by addressing Speaker A's anxiety.\n\nThe topic coherence is maintained throughout, focusing on the completed task and its immediate implications. There are no abrupt shifts or irrelevant statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n\n*   **Pauses:** All pauses between turns are brief (typically 1 second or less, e.g., 00:01 to 00:02, 00:07 to 00:08, 00:14 to 00:15, 00:33 to 00:34). These are natural conversational pauses and do not hinder the flow. There are no \"long pauses\" detected.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    *   [00:10 - 00:14] Speaker A starts at 00:10 while Speaker B finishes at 00:11. This is a 1-second overlap where Speaker A anticipates and completes Speaker B's sentence (\"longer than forever?\"). This type of anticipatory completion is a common feature of natural, fluent conversation, indicating active listening and engagement rather than disruption.\n    *   [00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B starts at 00:21 while Speaker A finishes at 00:22. This is also a 1-second overlap. Speaker B seems to be chiming in as Speaker A trails off, picking up on the implied concern about the \"final\" product. Again, this enhances the naturalness and responsiveness of the dialogue.\n\nNeither of these overlaps is prolonged or harmful. They fit the description of \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\" and contribute to the sense of a dynamic, interactive exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--516",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Do you like pasta?\n[00:01 - 00:07] Speaker B: Yeah! I've actually tried to make it from scratch a few times. It always turned out pretty well,\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: Really? That's impressive! What kind of pasta did you make?\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B: Mostly fettuccine and ravioli. That's awesome! I love cooking too. What's your favorite type of pasta?\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker A: Well, I like the kind that has broccoli or carrot in it, I'm not a big fan of overly creamy\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker B: Red sauce, right? I get that. Have you tried pesto or Alfredo sauce instead?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous turn, maintaining a coherent conversation flow.\n- Speaker B's initial response (0:01-0:07) directly answers Speaker A's question about liking pasta and elaborates on it.\n- Speaker A's follow-up (0:06-0:09) shows engagement (\"That's impressive!\") and logically asks for more detail (\"What kind of pasta did you make?\").\n- Speaker B's response (0:10-0:16) provides the requested information and then reciprocates with a question to Speaker A, maintaining topic coherence and driving the conversation forward.\n- Speaker A's subsequent turn (0:17-0:23) directly answers Speaker B's question and adds a personal preference.\n- Speaker B's final turn (0:22-0:27) demonstrates active listening and logical inference by interpreting Speaker A's preference (\"not a big fan of overly creamy\") and offering a relevant follow-up question about alternative sauces.\nThe topic remains consistently focused on pasta and related preferences/experiences.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns, which indicates a smooth conversational rhythm. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n- At 0:06, Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence at 0:07. This is a 1-second overlap.\n- At 0:22, Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence at 0:23. This is also a 1-second overlap.\nAs per the instructions, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\". These 1-second overlaps are indeed brief and typical of natural, engaged conversation, often indicating active listening or anticipation of the other speaker's completion rather than a disruptive interruption. They do not hinder the flow or understanding of the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--489",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Can I introduce myself? I'm Gian Luca Donatelli. I'm from Spain.\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: I'm Gina. I'm from Finland.\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker A: And who do you work for?\n[00:10 - 00:21] Speaker B: I don't work for a company. I'm self-employed. I am a journalist, I write articles for magazines. I'm here at this conference to research for an article on internet service providers, particularly\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but since you're writing about internet service providers, have you already gathered some insights from the conference?\n[00:28 - 00:39] Speaker B: Not yet, I was just getting started. But I haven't finished telling you, my article is specifically about service providers in Europe. You mentioned your friend works for an Italian service provider, right?\n[00:39 - 00:42] Speaker A: Yes, that's right. Can I introduce you to him?\n[00:43 - 00:44] Speaker B: Yes, of course, that would be nice.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate excellent relevance and logical consistency.\n- Speaker B's initial self-introduction [00:06 - 00:08] is a direct and appropriate response to Speaker A's introduction.\n- Speaker A's follow-up question about work [00:08 - 00:10] naturally extends the conversation after introductions.\n- Speaker B's detailed explanation of being self-employed and a journalist researching internet service providers [00:10 - 00:21] directly answers Speaker A's question and provides context for their presence at the conference.\n- Speaker A's interjection and question [00:20 - 00:28] is highly relevant, picking up immediately on the topic of internet service providers that Speaker B just introduced.\n- Speaker B's response [00:28 - 00:39] first addresses A's question (\"Not yet...\") and then seamlessly transitions to elaborate on their article's scope (Europe) and connects it to something Speaker A (presumably) mentioned previously about a friend, demonstrating strong contextual understanding and topic coherence.\n- Speaker A's offer to introduce [00:39 - 00:42] is a direct and helpful follow-up to B's specific research needs and earlier mention of the friend.\n- Speaker B's acceptance [00:43 - 00:44] concludes the interaction logically.\nAll turns build upon each other, maintaining a clear and coherent topic flow. There are no irrelevant or confusing statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long or awkward pauses between turns. The transitions between speakers are smooth, indicating active listening and engagement. For example, the pause between Speaker A's introduction and Speaker B's introduction ([00:05 - 00:06]) is a natural brief pause, as is the one between Speaker A's offer and Speaker B's acceptance ([00:42 - 00:43]). All other transitions are immediate.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap identified:\n    - At [00:20 - 00:28], Speaker A begins speaking at 00:20 while Speaker B is still finishing their previous turn at 00:21. This is a 1-second overlap. However, Speaker A explicitly states, \"Sorry to jump in,\" which indicates awareness and politeness. This type of brief, apologetic interjection is natural in conversation, showing eagerness to engage and does not disrupt the flow. It falls under the category of acceptable brief overlaps rather than harmful prolonged overlapping turns.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking contribute to a natural and fluent conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--386",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I can't believe I still have this pain in my back. This medicine the doctor gave me was supposed to make me feel a lot\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but have you been taking it exactly as prescribed? Maybe you should start taking it three times a day like you were told.\n[00:12 - 00:23] Speaker A: Oh, I was actually going to say \"feel better by now,\" but you're right. I've only been taking it twice a day. I'll try increasing the dosage as the doctor recommended.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A expresses frustration about persistent pain despite medication, and Speaker B immediately jumps in (acknowledging the interruption) with a highly relevant question about adherence to the prescription. This shows anticipation and active listening. Speaker A's subsequent response directly addresses Speaker B's question, acknowledging their own oversight (\"I've only been taking it twice a day\") and stating a clear intent to correct it based on the doctor's recommendation and Speaker B's prompting. The topic coherence is maintained throughout, focusing on medication efficacy and dosage.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates strong interactional fluency. There is a brief overlap (00:05 - 00:06) where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. However, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which is a natural conversational repair mechanism that minimizes disruption and indicates politeness. This is not a prolonged or harmful overlap. There are no long pauses between turns; the conversation flows smoothly and promptly from one speaker to the next, especially evident in the immediate transition from Speaker B's turn (ends 00:12) to Speaker A's next turn (starts 00:12). This indicates engaged and natural turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--443",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hey!\n[00:01 - 00:01] Speaker B: Hi!\n[00:01 - 00:11] Speaker A: I just made some risotto. I'm trying out a recipe from my favorite cookbook. It's got really good reviews, so let's see how it turns out.\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B: That sounds really delicious! How'd it go?\n[00:13 - 00:14] Speaker A: It turned out great!\n[00:15 - 00:16] Speaker B: Do you have a favorite cookbook?\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: I just have one! It's called Jacques Pépin: Classic Recipes For Every Kitchen.\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B: That's awesome! I'll check it out. Have you ever checked out Bon Appetit?\n[00:27 - 00:29] Speaker A: No, I haven't! What's it like? Is\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker B: It's just a cooking magazine that teaches people how to cook different things.\n[00:32 - 00:38] Speaker A: Oh, that sounds interesting! I was going to say, my cookbook also has some great tips for beginners.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining topic coherence throughout the conversation.\n- Speaker B's initial response \"That sounds really delicious! How'd it go?\" directly addresses Speaker A's statement about making risotto.\n- Speaker B's follow-up question \"Do you have a favorite cookbook?\" directly relates to Speaker A mentioning \"my favorite cookbook.\"\n- Speaker B's introduction of \"Bon Appetit\" is a logical extension of the conversation about cookbooks and cooking resources.\n- Speaker A's questions about Bon Appetit and later linking back to their cookbook's beginner tips show active listening and smooth transitions.\nThe conversation flows naturally without any irrelevant or out-of-place remarks, indicating strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural conversational rhythm.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - [00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing (1-second overlap). This is a very common and natural occurrence in dynamic conversations, often signaling active listening or eagerness to respond rather than an interruption. It does not disrupt the flow.\n    - [00:28 - 00:32] Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing an utterance (1-second overlap). Similar to the first instance, this brief overlap is acceptable and does not appear harmful to the conversation's quality. Speaker A was mid-sentence (\"Is\") and Speaker B picked up quickly.\nOverall, the pacing feels natural and the minor overlaps are characteristic of engaged, informal conversation, not disruptive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--36940",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hey, Corinne. I noticed you were having some trouble with your radar settings. Mind if I take a look at\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker B: What? No, I don't mind. But I don't think there's anything wrong with my radar. I have it set the way I like it.\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: Let me just take a look and see if I can spot anything. Maybe there's something you're not noticing that's\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B: Seeing? I don't think so. But go ahead, if you're so sure there's an issue.\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker A: Hmmm. Well, I'm not sure what's causing the problem, but it looks like your settings are off just a bit.\n[00:30 - 00:33] Speaker B: That can't be right. I have them set exactly the way I want them.\n[00:34 - 00:37] Speaker A: Maybe you should try changing them a bit and see if that helps.\n[00:37 - 00:40] Speaker B: I don't know. I'm not sure if I want to change them.\n[00:41 - 00:45] Speaker A: Well, it's up to you. But maybe just a small change will make a big difference.\n[00:46 - 00:49] Speaker B: All right, I'll try changing them a bit and see what happens.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates the conversation by pointing out a perceived problem with radar settings and offering help. Speaker B's initial responses consistently convey skepticism and resistance to the idea that there's an issue, but they also grant permission for Speaker A to look. As Speaker A identifies a problem, Speaker B continues to express disbelief and adherence to their preferred settings. The conversation then logically progresses to Speaker A suggesting a solution (changing settings) and Speaker B eventually agreeing to try, albeit with initial hesitation. The topic remains consistently focused on radar settings and the decision to adjust them. Each turn is a direct and logical response to the previous one, building a coherent narrative of assistance and resistance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent and natural. There are several instances of brief overlaps, such as [00:05 - 00:12] where Speaker B starts while Speaker A is still finishing, and [00:18 - 00:23] where Speaker B again overlaps with Speaker A's trailing thought. Similar brief overlaps or immediate turn-takes occur at [00:23 - 00:30], [00:30 - 00:33], and [00:37 - 00:40]. These are very short (less than a second) and typical of dynamic, engaged conversation where speakers anticipate or react quickly. They do not constitute \"extended overlaps\" that disrupt understanding or flow. Similarly, the pauses between turns (e.g., between [00:12] and [00:13], [00:33] and [00:34], [00:40] and [00:41], [00:45] and [00:46]) are consistently very short (around 1 second), which are natural hesitations or breathing spaces, not \"long pauses.\" The turn-taking is swift and responsive, contributing to a natural and fluent conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--27589",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Mom, can I ask you a question?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Sure, what is it?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: How does the internet work?\n[00:05 - 00:15] Speaker B: Well, the internet is a global network of computers that are connected together. When you use the internet, you're actually using a lot of different networks that are all inter connected, allowing\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker A: Wait, so does that mean every time I go online, I'm connecting to all those networks at once?\n[00:21 - 00:29] Speaker B: Not exactly. You're connecting to your internet service provider first, and then they route your connection through those networks to get you where you need to go.\n[00:29 - 00:32] Speaker A: Oh, I see. So how do I connect to the internet?\n[00:33 - 00:47] Speaker B: You need an internet service provider, or ISP. Your ISP gives you access to the internet by providing you with a connection, usually through a cable or phone line. Once you're connected to your ISP, you can access any website or online service that you want.\n[00:47 - 00:52] Speaker A: Wow, that's really cool! Thanks for explaining it to me, Mom.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logically consistent. Speaker B provides clear and direct answers to Speaker A's questions about how the internet works and how to connect to it. Speaker A's follow-up questions are also logical and demonstrate engagement with the topic, building upon the information provided by Speaker B. The conversation maintains strong topic coherence throughout, successfully explaining a complex concept in an understandable way.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is one brief overlap at [0:14 - 0:15] where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This overlap is short (1 second) and appears natural, as Speaker A is interjecting for a clarification question based on Speaker B's ongoing explanation. This is considered an acceptable, brief overlap according to the guidelines. There are also small pauses (1 second) between turns at [0:20 - 0:21] and [0:32 - 0:33], which are perfectly normal and contribute to the natural flow of conversation, allowing for processing and turn-taking without feeling prolonged. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--422",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Good morning. This is Apple Corporation. May I speak to Ballam?\n[00:04 - 00:04] Speaker B: Speaking.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm calling to offer you the position of computer engineer.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: May I ask how much I can get every month, considering\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but before we get into the details, I just want to confirm that you're still interested in the position?\n[00:18 - 00:22] Speaker B: Yes, I am. So, about the salary, how much can I get every month?\n[00:22 - 00:33] Speaker A: Your starting salary is 3,000 yuan a month, but if you work well, we will put you on our regular staff after six months and your salary will be raised to 5,000 yuan a month.\n[00:33 - 00:35] Speaker B: I thought the starting salary is too low.\n[00:36 - 00:38] Speaker A: What is the lowest salary you may consider?\n[00:39 - 00:42] Speaker B: I hope to make 4,000 yuan a month for supporting my family.\n[00:42 - 00:49] Speaker A: That's all right. We will pay you 4,000 yuan a month for supporting your family. Would you like to start on next Monday?\n[00:49 - 00:56] Speaker B: No problem. Thank you for hiring me, I am very proud to be employed by your company and I will come in at eight o'clock sharp Monday.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses the previous statement or logically advances the conversation toward the shared goal (job offer and acceptance).\n- Speaker A initiates the call appropriately and states the purpose.\n- Speaker B immediately responds to the offer by inquiring about salary, a logical first detail for a candidate.\n- Speaker A's interruption at [00:10-00:18] is not a relevance issue. It's a strategic and polite redirect to confirm overall interest before delving into specifics, which is a common and logical step in recruitment to ensure time is spent efficiently.\n- Speaker B consistently returns to the salary question, showing clear interest and priority.\n- The negotiation phase (salary offer, B's objection, A's counter-question, B's counter-offer, A's acceptance) is highly logical and coherent.\n- Speaker A's acknowledgement of B's reason for the salary (\"for supporting your family\") shows good attention to detail and builds rapport.\n- The closing turns are perfectly relevant, confirming acceptance and expressing commitment.\nOverall, the conversation maintains strong topic coherence and logical progression.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are no long pauses that disrupt the flow of conversation. Turns are taken promptly.\n- There is one instance of an overlap: [00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B. Speaker A begins speaking at 00:10 while Speaker B is still speaking, and Speaker B finishes at 00:11. This is a brief overlap (1 second) and is immediately followed by Speaker A saying \"Sorry to interrupt,\" acknowledging the overlap and indicating it was intentional for conversational management rather than a lack of turn-taking ability. Given that the instruction states \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this overlap is brief and explicitly managed, it does not count as harmful or indicative of poor fluency. It's a naturalistic feature of spoken dialogue where one speaker politely interjects to redirect.\nThe overall flow feels natural and smooth.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--18098",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Wow, this dinner was amazing! I'm so glad you came over.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: I had a great time, too. Your cooking is incredible.\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A: Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it. So, tell me more about your work as an artist. What inspires you?\n[00:15 - 00:32] Speaker B: Well, I find inspiration in a lot of different places – nature, other artwork, emotions. Anything that catches my eye or speaks to me in some way can be a source of inspiration. For example, right now I'm working on a series inspired by the ocean. The colors and movement of the water are just so beautiful and calming and I'm\n[00:31 - 00:40] Speaker A: The ocean, that's fascinating! Have you ever thought about incorporating other elements of nature, like forests or mountains, into your work as well?\n[00:40 - 00:52] Speaker B: Actually, I have! After the ocean series, I'm planning to explore the idea of forests. But I was just about to mention that the calming effect of the water is something I'm really trying to capture in my upcoming show and I\n[00:51 - 00:56] Speaker A: Oh, you have a show coming up? That's fantastic! When is it?\n[00:56 - 00:58] Speaker B: It's in a few weeks. You should come!\n[00:58 - 01:01] Speaker A: I would love to! Thank you for inviting me.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence.\n- Speaker A initiates the conversation by complimenting the dinner and transitioning to a new topic (B's work as an artist), asking about inspiration. This is a natural follow-up after a meal.\n- Speaker B provides a direct and relevant answer, explaining their sources of inspiration and giving a concrete example (ocean series).\n- Speaker A picks up on the \"ocean\" theme and expands it by asking about incorporating other nature elements, which is logically consistent with the current topic.\n- Speaker B acknowledges A's suggestion but smoothly brings the focus back to their current project and an important upcoming event (the show), demonstrating a natural conversational flow where one speaker might briefly re-direct the focus.\n- Speaker A then zeroes in on the \"show coming up\" which is a key piece of information B was trying to convey, showing engagement and follow-up on important details.\n- Speaker B and A conclude with a relevant exchange about the invitation.\nThe conversation flows naturally from one point to the next without any irrelevant detours or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally strong, with minimal pauses and good turn-taking. There are no long pauses that disrupt the flow.\nHowever, there are two instances of brief overlaps where Speaker A interjects while Speaker B is still speaking:\n1.  At [00:31], Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still completing their sentence (\"...and I'm\"). This overlap lasts approximately 1 second.\n2.  At [00:51], Speaker A again starts speaking while Speaker B is in the middle of their sentence (\"...and I\"). This overlap also lasts approximately 1 second.\n\nWhile these overlaps are brief (1 second each), they represent Speaker A cutting off Speaker B before they fully complete their thought. In both cases, Speaker B was leading up to mentioning the \"upcoming show,\" and Speaker A jumped in before this full context was given. Although brief, these are \"overlapping turns\" which can be considered slightly disruptive to natural flow, as they suggest Speaker A might be anticipating or listening for keywords rather than allowing Speaker B to complete their full statement.\n\nHowever, the dialogue doesn't break down, and Speaker B adapts smoothly, either by re-stating or pivoting. The overlaps are not \"prolonged\" (e.g., several seconds of both speakers talking over each other), nor do they lead to confusion or awkwardness. They are more indicative of an eager speaker than a significant breakdown in conversational turn-taking. Given the definition that \"small pauses and brief overlaps... are acceptable,\" and the fact that these are indeed brief and don't lead to a loss of coherence, the fluency is still largely appropriate and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--101675",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hi, Mrs. Adams. I'm here to talk to you about my recent absences.\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: Yes, I was just looking over your file. It says here that you've missed a total of seven days of school this semes ter, and\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: Yeah, I know. I'm really sorry about that. It won't happen again.\n[00:15 - 00:25] Speaker B: Well, I appreciate your apology, but unfortunately you've already used up all your absences for the semester. If you miss any more days, you'll be suspen ded and\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: What?! No, I can't get suspended! My mom would kill me!\n[00:29 - 00:32] Speaker B: Well then you need to make sure you don't miss any more days of school.\n[00:33 - 00:35] Speaker A: But what if I have an emergency or something?\n[00:35 - 00:38] Speaker B: We can't make any exceptions, I'm sorry.\n[00:38 - 00:44] Speaker A: Well, what if I make up all the work I missed? Would that be enough to keep me from getting suspended?\n[00:44 - 00:50] Speaker B: Let me check… Yes, actually, if you complete all your make-up work within two weeks, that should be sufficient.\n[00:50 - 00:54] Speaker A: Thank you so much, Mrs. Adams! You're a lifesaver!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement.\n- Speaker A introduces the topic of absences, and Speaker B immediately confirms knowledge and provides specific details, showing direct relevance.\n- Speaker A's apology and promise are a natural response to the revealed severity of their absences.\n- Speaker B's explanation of the consequences (used up absences, suspension) is a direct and logical progression of the conversation based on the rules.\n- Speaker A's emotional reaction (\"What?! No, I can't get suspended!\") is a highly relevant and understandable response to the potential consequence.\n- Speaker B's reiteration of the requirement to avoid suspension is consistent.\n- Speaker A's subsequent questions about emergencies and making up work are logical attempts to find a solution or exception, showing problem-solving relevance.\n- Speaker B's responses regarding exceptions and the feasibility of make-up work directly answer Speaker A's queries, leading to a coherent resolution.\nThe topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on the student's absences, the consequences, and potential resolutions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are two brief overlaps:\n    - Speaker B ending at 00:11, Speaker A starting at 00:10 (1-second overlap). This is a minor, natural overlap, perhaps indicating Speaker A's eagerness to apologize or interject.\n    - Speaker B ending at 00:25, Speaker A starting at 00:24 (1-second overlap). This overlap coincides with Speaker A's emotional interjection, which is very common and natural in heated or surprising moments in conversation.\n- There is one brief pause:\n    - Speaker B ending at 00:32, Speaker A starting at 00:33 (1-second pause). This is a very short and natural pause, allowing for processing or thought before the next question.\nNone of these overlaps or pauses are prolonged. They align with the description of \"small pauses and brief overlaps\" being acceptable, contributing to a natural and dynamic conversational flow. There are no extended periods of silence or prolonged interruptions that would hinder the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--423",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi! How are you?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: I'm doing great. How's it going with you?\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker A: I'm fine! I've been really busy with work and studies, but I've managed to find some time for a puppy training class.\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker B: Oh! What kind of dog do you have?\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker A: I have a Dachshund. Her name is Megan and she's the best.\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B: Oh, how adorable! I have three Golden Retrievers. They are a lot of work, but they're so lovable.\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker A: I really want to train my dog. Megan is a little neurotic.\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker B: It can be hard to find good dog training classes. What type of training do you have in mind?\n[00:33 - 00:39] Speaker A: I want to teach her how to sit, stay, shake, and do the dog's version of roll over,\n[00:38 - 00:44] Speaker B: Sorry, but what do you mean by the \"dog's version of roll over\"? Is it different from the usual roll over trick?\n[00:44 - 00:53] Speaker A: Yes, it's a bit different. It's more about her rolling to her side and staying there. But I haven't mentioned the other tricks I want her to learn yet like fetching\n[00:52 - 00:58] Speaker B: Oh, I see. By the way, are you considering any advanced training for her, like agility or obedience competitions?\n[00:59 - 01:07] Speaker A: Not at the moment, but I think it would be fun in the future. First, I want to make sure she masters the basics like sit, stay, and shake.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance, logical consistency, and topic coherence. Each turn directly addresses or builds upon the preceding statement, maintaining a clear focus on the topic of dog training. For instance, Speaker B's questions (\"What kind of dog do you have?\", \"What type of training do you have in mind?\") directly follow up on Speaker A's introduction of the puppy training class. Speaker A's responses are specific and relevant, detailing her dog and the tricks she wants to teach. Even when Speaker B asks for clarification (\"what do you mean by the 'dog's version of roll over'?\") or introduces a slightly more advanced related topic (\"advanced training for her, like agility or obedience competitions?\"), it flows naturally from the current discussion, demonstrating excellent topic progression. There are no irrelevant diversions or misunderstandings, indicating a highly coherent and logical conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the gaps are typically 1 second, which is natural for conversation. There are two instances of brief, 1-second overlaps:\n1.  At [00:38], Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing, seeking clarification on \"the dog's version of roll over.\" This is a functional overlap, indicating engagement and an immediate need for understanding, rather than a disruptive interruption.\n2.  At [00:52], Speaker B again starts speaking while Speaker A is concluding her sentence, acknowledging what was said (\"Oh, I see\") and then transitioning smoothly to a new, related question.\nAccording to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" These 1-second overlaps are brief and do not appear to cause any disruption, confusion, or breakdown in communication. They suggest a natural, engaged conversational rhythm. Therefore, interactional fluency is maintained at a high level.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--519",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: You know, the War of Roses was one of the most epic historical events in England.\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker B: Oh yeah? How come?\n[00:07 - 00:17] Speaker A: Well, some folks thought that the title of English monarch would pass back and forth between the Plantagenets and the Tudors, but the War of Roses really cleared up the succession\n[00:16 - 00:24] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but could you clarify how the War of Roses actually cleared things up? I'm a bit confused about that part.\n[00:24 - 00:49] Speaker A: Sure, the War of Roses was a series of civil wars for control of the throne of England. The Plantagenets ruled England from 1139 to 1485. And during that time, the throne passed back and forth a bunch of times between their descendants. Then the Tudors came in in 1485, and that was good too because things were sorted out. But the thing is, it was just a bunch of beheadings and political maneuvering\n[00:48 - 00:55] Speaker B: Beheadings and crossbow assassinations sound intense! But I'm curious, what role did the Tudors play in bringing stability?\n[00:55 - 01:08] Speaker A: The Tudors, starting with Henry VII, managed to establish a more stable monarchy after winning the final battle of the War of Roses. However, I didn't get to mention that the crossbow assassinations were also...",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong **Response Relevance**. Speaker A consistently provides information and clarification directly in response to Speaker B's questions. For example, Speaker A explains \"how come\" the War of Roses was epic, clarifies \"how it cleared things up,\" and details the \"role the Tudors played in bringing stability.\" Speaker B's questions are also highly relevant, seeking elaboration or clarification on points introduced by Speaker A, showing active listening and engagement with the topic. The conversation maintains logical consistency and topic coherence throughout, flowing smoothly from a general statement about the War of Roses to specific historical details and the roles of key players. Even Speaker B's introduction of \"crossbow assassinations\" is picked up by Speaker A as something to elaborate on, indicating a willingness to incorporate and address points raised by the other speaker.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe **Interactional Fluency** is generally very good. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  [00:16 - 00:17]: Speaker B starts speaking at [00:16] while Speaker A finishes at [00:17]. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B's immediate interjection (\"Sorry to interrupt\") indicates an awareness of the overlap and a polite intention, which is a natural aspect of conversation.\n2.  [00:48 - 00:49]: Speaker B starts speaking at [00:48] while Speaker A finishes at [00:49]. This is another 1-second overlap. In this case, Speaker B is reacting to Speaker A's \"beheadings and political maneuvering\" by picking up on the intensity.\n\nBoth overlaps are brief (1 second) and appear to be natural, rather than prolonged or disruptive. They suggest engaged and eager turn-taking, characteristic of a lively discussion. There are no indications of long pauses between speaker turns. Therefore, the interactional fluency is appropriate and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--243",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: You have a girlfriend in Thailand? Interesting. How come I have never heard of her before?\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I just realized—how long have you known her? I mean, have you been talking for a while?\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker A: Actually, it will be my first time to meet her.\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: You mean you haven't seen her before? Then, how could she be your girlfriend? Maybe you don't even know if she\n[00:18 - 00:28] Speaker A: I was going to say, we've known each other over the Internet for a few months now. Actually, we are on an intimate level. We even plan to be engaged next month.\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker B: Congratulations! It's good to follow your heart. But I just didn't expect it to be so fast.\n[00:34 - 00:41] Speaker A: The Internet is making interaction much faster. People are getting to know each other much more quickly this way.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement, ensuring topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt, but I just realized—how long have you known her?\") is relevant to Speaker A's mention of a girlfriend and seeks clarification on the relationship's history.\n- Speaker A's response (\"Actually, it will be my first time to meet her.\") is a direct, albeit surprising, answer to B's question.\n- Speaker B's subsequent disbelief and questioning (\"You mean you haven't seen her before? Then, how could she be your girlfriend?\") logically follows A's revelation.\n- Speaker A's explanation about an internet relationship and engagement plans fully addresses B's skepticism and clarifies the nature of the \"girlfriend\" status.\n- Speaker B's congratulatory remark and expression of surprise at the speed (\"But I just didn't expect it to be so fast.\") are appropriate reactions to A's news.\n- Speaker A's final comment generalizes their experience to the broader impact of the internet on relationships, maintaining topic coherence.\nThe conversation flows naturally from one point to the next, with no irrelevant turns or breaks in logic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are two instances of brief overlaps, both lasting approximately 1 second:\n- `[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B:` overlaps with `[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A:`. Speaker B explicitly says \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and makes the overlap feel natural and intentional, not disruptive or accidental.\n- `[00:18 - 00:28] Speaker A:` overlaps with `[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B:`. This overlap occurs as Speaker A begins to explain while Speaker B is still expressing their disbelief. This can be a natural dynamic where one speaker anticipates the other's point or feels the need to interject with clarification, especially when their \"girlfriend\" status is being questioned.\n\nAccording to the instructions, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" Both overlaps here are brief (1 second) and appear to be natural aspects of conversational turn-taking, rather than prolonged or disruptive. There are no long pauses detected between turns. The pacing feels natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--329",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: You should have seen the line at the housing office. It took me an hour to make my dormitory deposit for next year. Have you made yours yet, or\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: No, I'm not sure I'm going to.\n[00:09 - 00:18] Speaker A: There's not much time left. The deadline's May 1. That is just two weeks from now. Are you short of time to\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B: Cash? No, I'm okay.\n[00:19 - 00:27] Speaker A: You'd better hurry up if you want a dorm room next September. There aren't enough rooms for everyone, and first-year students have priority.\n[00:28 - 00:30] Speaker B: Well, I've been thinking about living off campus.\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker A: Have you any idea of how much that would cost? There is the rent, utilities, and you'd probably need a car.\n[00:38 - 00:48] Speaker B: I know it would be more expensive. I think I can handle it though. The dorm is just so noisy that I can't get anything done. Maybe my grades would be better if I had some peace and quiet in a place of my own.\n[00:49 - 00:53] Speaker A: You should study in the library the way I do. Think of the money you'd save.\n[00:54 - 01:00] Speaker B: I've got to think it over some more. By the way, what were you saying about the deadline earlier? There's still two weeks left in April.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker A initiates the conversation about dormitory deposits, and Speaker B directly addresses it, expressing uncertainty.\n- Speaker A then provides context and urgency (deadline), which Speaker B addresses by clarifying their financial situation.\n- The conversation naturally evolves as Speaker B introduces the idea of living off-campus, which Speaker A immediately questions regarding cost.\n- Speaker B justifies their preference by explaining the issues with dorm noise and how it affects their studies, prompting Speaker A to offer an alternative solution (library).\n- Speaker B's final turn, while seemingly a slight shift, is a natural return to an earlier, important piece of information (the deadline) for clarification, indicating engagement and recall. This is not a random digression but a functional clarification within the overarching topic.\nAll turns build upon previous ones, keeping the dialogue focused and progressive.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n- There are two brief overlaps detected:\n    - [00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B starts while Speaker A is trailing off. This is a very common and natural conversational phenomenon, indicating an eagerness to respond rather than a disruptive overlap.\n    - [00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B anticipates Speaker A's incomplete question (\"Are you short of time to...\") and offers \"Cash?\". This type of anticipatory overlap demonstrates high fluency and understanding between speakers, making the conversation flow more smoothly rather than hindering it.\n- There are small pauses of approximately 1 second at [00:27 - 00:28] and [00:30 - 00:31]. These are normal, natural pauses for thought or transition and do not constitute \"long pauses\" that would negatively impact fluency.\nOverall, there are no extended overlaps or long pauses that disrupt the conversational flow; instead, the brief overlaps enhance the naturalness of the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--573",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi, how are you doing?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm doing great, how about yourself?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm fine, but I miss lifting weights! I don't do it much anymore.\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B: I have always been interested in weightlifting, but I have never worked up the courage to try it.\n[00:13 - 00:14] Speaker A: Have you tried it before?\n[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker B: I don't believe so. Have you been lifting weights a long time?\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker A: Yes, I've been lifting weights for about six years.\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker B: What kind of exercises do you do?\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker A: I do a lot of strength exercises like lifting weights and some high-intensity\n[00:29 - 00:33] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but do you have any recommendations for a beginner like me?\n[00:34 - 00:42] Speaker A: Absolutely! For beginners, I would suggest starting with basic compound movements. However, I haven't mentioned squats yet which are\n[00:41 - 00:47] Speaker B: Squats sound challenging, but I'm eager to learn. Could you tell me more about the benefits of these exercises?\n[00:47 - 00:55] Speaker A: Sure! Squats are great for building overall strength and stability. They also help improve your core and lower body muscles.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n- **Initial Exchange (00:00 - 00:08):** The greeting and follow-up are perfectly aligned with natural conversation. Speaker A's introduction of missing weightlifting is a personal statement that sets the topic.\n- **Topic Development (00:08 - 00:24):** Speaker B expresses interest and hesitation, which logically follows A's comment. Speaker A's subsequent question \"Have you tried it before?\" directly addresses B's statement. B's response and reciprocal question are also highly relevant. The discussion then moves coherently to Speaker A's experience and types of exercises.\n- **Engagement and Interruption (00:25 - 00:47):** Speaker B's interruption at [00:29] (\"Sorry to jump in, but do you have any recommendations for a beginner like me?\") is highly relevant, showing active listening and a desire to move the conversation towards practical advice based on the ongoing discussion about exercises. This isn't an abrupt topic change but a focused inquiry within the established context. Speaker A's response is directly to this request. Speaker B's second interruption at [00:41] also maintains relevance by immediately building on Speaker A's mention of squats, asking for clarification and benefits.\n- **Conclusion (00:47 - 00:55):** Speaker A's explanation of squat benefits directly answers Speaker B's query, concluding the excerpt with a highly relevant response.\nOverall, the dialogue flows logically, with each turn building upon the previous one, demonstrating excellent topic coherence and consistent relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very natural and appropriate.\n- **Pauses:** All pauses between speaker turns are brief (typically 1 second or less), falling within the acceptable range for natural conversation. There are no long pauses that would indicate hesitation, awkwardness, or a breakdown in communication flow.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two instances of overlaps identified:\n    - **[00:29 - 00:30] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A:** This overlap is brief (1 second). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry to jump in\"), which is a common and polite conversational strategy. This overlap doesn't disrupt the flow but rather signifies eagerness and active participation from Speaker B, making the conversation dynamic.\n    - **[00:41 - 00:42] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A:** This overlap is also brief (1 second). Speaker A was mid-sentence (\"...which are\") when Speaker B jumped in. Speaker B's interjection (\"Squats sound challenging, but I'm eager to learn...\") directly relates to and anticipates what Speaker A was about to say. This type of overlap is very common in engaged, natural conversation and demonstrates active listening and conversational agility, rather than being prolonged or harmful.\nNeither of the overlaps is extended or prolonged; both are brief and contextually appropriate, contributing to the natural and lively feel of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--66918",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Arlin. Can I talk to you for a second?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Yeah, sure. What's up?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: I need to tell you something, but you have to promise not to tell anyone.\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B: Okay, I promise. What is it?\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker A: Remember how we were at that party last weekend and we got really drunk? I\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B: Wait, are you about to bring up what happened in the bathroom?\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker A: Yeah... And then we ended up making out in the bathroom?\n[00:24 - 00:25] Speaker B: Yes... I remember.\n[00:25 - 00:32] Speaker A: Well, I just wanted to make sure that you don't tell anyone about what happened because I'm really not ready for people to know yet.\n[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker B: Okay, I won't say anything. But why are you so worried about what people\n[00:36 - 00:44] Speaker A: It's just... I don't know... I just am. It was a mistake and I don't want anyone to think differently of me because of it.\n[00:44 - 00:48] Speaker B: Okay, Daiana. Your secret is safe with me.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate excellent relevance and coherence. Each speaker's turn directly follows from and builds upon the previous one, maintaining a clear logical flow.\n*   Speaker B's initial responses (\"Yeah, sure. What's up?\", \"Okay, I promise. What is it?\") are perfectly aligned with Speaker A's request to talk and reveal a secret.\n*   Speaker B's interjection \"Wait, are you about to bring up what happened in the bathroom?\" at [00:16 - 00:19] shows high topic coherence and anticipation, indicating active listening and understanding of Speaker A's implicit topic.\n*   Speaker A then confirms and elaborates, maintaining consistency.\n*   Speaker A's explanation for the secrecy (\"I'm really not ready for people to know yet. It was a mistake and I don't want anyone to think differently of me\") is logically consistent with the initial request for secrecy and vulnerability.\n*   Speaker B's final reassurance (\"Okay, Daiana. Your secret is safe with me.\") provides a suitable and logical conclusion to the confidential discussion.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses, topic shifts, or logical inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good, demonstrating natural conversational dynamics.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    *   [00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This overlap (from 00:16 to 00:17) is very short (approx. 1 second) and indicates active listening and anticipation from Speaker B. It doesn't hinder communication but rather makes the conversation feel more natural and engaged, as B is accurately predicting A's revelation.\n    *   [00:36 - 00:44] Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their question. This overlap (from 00:36 to 00:37) is also very brief (approx. 1 second). It's common in natural speech for a speaker to start formulating their response before the other speaker has completely finished, especially when the subject is sensitive or emotional, as it seems to be for Speaker A. Neither overlap is extended or disruptive.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses indicated in the timestamps. The gaps between turns are minimal (typically 1-2 seconds), which is characteristic of a fluid and natural conversation.\n\nThe brief overlaps and lack of long pauses contribute to a highly fluent and realistic interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--4418",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, man. What's up?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Not much. Just hanging out. What about you?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm good. Just thinking about some stuff.\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker B: Yeah, I know what you mean. It's tough to stay on track sometimes, especially when there are so many temptations out there, like\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: Speaking of temptations, do you think it's ever okay to give in just to avoid something worse?\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker B: That's a good question, but I was going to say 'out there.' Anyway, yeah, sometimes we have to give in to temptation in order to avoid something worse happening.\n[00:28 - 00:40] Speaker A: I get that, but I also believe that if I'm faced with a choice between what I want and what's best for me, I can choose the latter. And that's what I want to do from now on – be more self-controlled.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is consistently high. Each speaker's turn logically follows from the previous one, and the topic evolves coherently. Speaker B introduces the idea of \"temptations,\" which Speaker A immediately picks up on to ask a related philosophical question. Speaker B directly answers this question, acknowledging the slight interruption but maintaining focus on the topic. Speaker A then builds on B's answer by expressing their personal stance and aspirations related to the discussion. There are no instances of topic drift or illogical responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is generally good, though there is one notable moment. Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B at [00:13 - 00:19] while Speaker B is still speaking [00:07 - 00:14]. Speaker A interrupts Speaker B mid-sentence (\"like\"). Speaker B explicitly notes this interruption (\"but I was going to say 'out there.'\") before proceeding to answer the question. While this is an overlap and an interruption, it is brief (1 second of simultaneous speech) and does not lead to a breakdown in communication or an extended disruption. Speaker B handles it gracefully, clarifying their point without derailing the conversation. There are no long pauses between turns. The overall pace feels natural and dynamic, despite the brief overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--155",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hello? Hello?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Hello? Sorry, I can hear you now. Who is [interrupt]\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: Oh, could you hear me earlier? I was asking who is calling, please.\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker B: Yes, I can hear you now. This is John from the office. I wanted to discuss the upcoming project deadline. Have you had a chance to review the project timeline\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: The deadline? Yes, I was just about to ask if you could clarify which document you were referring to.\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker B: Oh, I was talking about the budget report. I sent it over yesterday. Did you get a chance to look at it?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **Initial Connection:** Speaker A's \"Hello? Hello?\" is met with Speaker B's \"Hello? Sorry, I can hear you now. Who is [interrupt]\", which directly addresses the perceived connection issue and attempts to identify the caller.\n2.  **Clarification & Re-asking:** Speaker A follows up by asking \"Oh, could you hear me earlier? I was asking who is calling, please.\" This is relevant as it confirms the connection status and re-states the original question clearly.\n3.  **Identification & Topic Introduction:** Speaker B's response \"Yes, I can hear you now. This is John from the office. I wanted to discuss the upcoming project deadline. Have you had a chance to review the project timeline\" is perfectly relevant. It answers the connection query, identifies himself, and immediately introduces the purpose of the call, moving the conversation forward.\n4.  **Engagement & Clarification Request:** Speaker A's \"The deadline? Yes, I was just about to ask if you could clarify which document you were referring to.\" shows active listening and engagement. It acknowledges the topic (deadline) and logically asks for a necessary clarification to proceed, demonstrating preparedness or willingness to engage with the topic.\n5.  **Specific Clarification:** Speaker B's \"Oh, I was talking about the budget report. I sent it over yesterday. Did you get a chance to look at it?\" directly provides the requested clarification, ensuring topic coherence.\n\nOverall, the dialogue flows naturally with each turn building upon the previous one, maintaining logical consistency and topic coherence throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates good fluency, with no signs of prolonged pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps.\n1.  **Brief Overlaps:** There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    *   `[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Hello? Sorry, I can hear you now. Who is [interrupt]`\n    *   `[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: Oh, could you hear me earlier? I was asking who is calling, please.`\n        *   Speaker A starts at 00:03 while Speaker B ends at 00:04. This is a 1-second overlap. This is typical in natural conversation, especially when there's an initial communication hiccup or an eager speaker. It's not an \"extended overlap\".\n    *   `[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker B: ...project timeline`\n    *   `[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: The deadline? Yes, I was just about to ask if you could clarify which document you were referring to.`\n        *   Speaker A starts at 00:16 while Speaker B ends at 00:17. This is another 1-second overlap. Again, this is a very common and acceptable form of turn-taking, often indicating engagement or anticipation of the previous speaker's point.\n2.  **No Long Pauses:** All turns follow each other with very minimal gaps, indicating a smooth and continuous flow of conversation. The timing stamps confirm that there are no significant silences that would disrupt the interactional rhythm.\n\nThe interaction feels natural and efficient, indicating strong interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--148",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: This is all your fault. This wouldn't have happened if you hadn't tried to give money to that policeman.\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Well, if you'd listen to me when I suggested asking someone for directions, we wouldn't have got lost in the first place, would we? But\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker A: Hold on, but you were the one who was driving when we got stopped by the police. If you hadn't been speeding, we wouldn't have been stopped at all.\n[00:19 - 00:30] Speaker B: That's not fair. We were doing fine until you suddenly decided you knew a quicker way. Speaking of which, why did you think giving money to the policeman was a good idea? I still don't understand how you\n[00:29 - 00:37] Speaker A: Oh, come on, I only suggested it because we were running so late. We would have been fine if you hadn't suggested driving instead of taking the train.\n[00:38 - 00:43] Speaker B: No, we would have been fine if you had remembered to book tickets. We wouldn't have been in this mess to begin with.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance, logical consistency, and topic coherence. The conversation is a heated argument where Speaker A and Speaker B continuously try to assign blame to each other for their shared predicament. Each turn directly responds to the previous accusation or introduces a new counter-accusation related to the events that led to their situation.\n\n*   **[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A** sets the initial blame.\n*   **[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B** logically counters by shifting blame related to getting lost.\n*   **[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker A** responds to the \"getting stopped\" implication by blaming Speaker B's speeding.\n*   **[00:19 - 00:30] Speaker B** refutes the speeding accusation and cycles back to Speaker A's initial action of trying to give money to the policeman, linking it to Speaker A's idea of a \"quicker way.\" This shows excellent recall and logical follow-up.\n*   **[00:29 - 00:37] Speaker A** explains their motive for the \"money\" suggestion (running late) and then shifts blame to Speaker B's choice of driving.\n*   **[00:38 - 00:43] Speaker B** logically counters Speaker A's train/driving point by bringing up the lack of booked tickets.\n\nAll turns are directly relevant to the ongoing blame game and contribute to the narrative of how they ended up in this situation. The arguments are consistent with the established context, and the topic remains tightly focused on assigning responsibility.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high and appropriate for the context of a heated argument.\n\n*   **Pauses:** There are small pauses between turns (e.g., 1 second between Speaker A's first turn and Speaker B's, and between Speaker A's third turn and Speaker B's). These are brief and natural, allowing for turn-taking without feeling disjointed.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps detected:\n    *   **[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker A** starts while **[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B** is still speaking, resulting in a 1-second overlap. Speaker A's \"Hold on\" is a direct interjection.\n    *   **[00:29 - 00:37] Speaker A** starts while **[00:19 - 00:30] Speaker B** is still speaking, also a 1-second overlap. Speaker A's \"Oh, come on\" is an immediate response to Speaker B's unfinished sentence.\n\nThese overlaps are not \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" in a way that hinders understanding. Instead, they are brief interruptions typical of an intense, emotional argument, where speakers are eager to interject and counter. Far from being \"harmful,\" these brief overlaps actually enhance the realism and naturalness of the interaction given its argumentative nature. They accurately portray a dynamic where participants are not strictly adhering to polite turn-taking, which is fitting for the depicted scenario.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--95341",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: You're welcome. I'm just glad I was able to help.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: I thought for sure I was going to die in that moment.\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: You're safe now. Just try to relax and take deep breaths.\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker B: I can't believe this is happening. Everything happened so quickly, I\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker A: Are you feeling dizzy at all? Lightheaded? Nauseous?\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B: A little bit of all of those, but mainly just shaken up.\n[00:19 - 00:30] Speaker A: That's understandable given what just happened. Do you think you can stand up? We should probably get further away from the building, just in case it collapses or something else happens.\n[00:30 - 00:32] Speaker B: Yeah, I think I can stand.\n[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker A: Okay, let me help you up then.\n[00:35 - 00:36] Speaker B: Hey! Are you okay?\n[00:37 - 00:40] Speaker A: I don't know, I feel really faint all of a sudden.\n[00:40 - 00:43] Speaker B: It's probably just shock. Here, let me help you sit down.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance.\n**Logical consistency:** The conversation follows a highly logical progression. Speaker A initially comforts and assesses Speaker B after a traumatic event, and then suggests moving to safety. Speaker B responds appropriately to A's questions and suggestions. A sudden shift occurs when A becomes unwell, and B's immediate \"Hey! Are you okay?\" is a natural and logically consistent reaction to a perceived change in A's condition. A's explanation and B's subsequent offer of help further maintain logical consistency, mirroring the initial dynamic but with roles reversed.\n**Topic coherence:** The conversation remains entirely coherent. It starts with debriefing a traumatic event and checking on the immediate aftermath, then shifts seamlessly to ensuring safety, and finally addresses a new, unexpected physical issue experienced by Speaker A. Each turn builds on the previous one, maintaining a clear focus on the immediate situation and the well-being of the participants.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural and appropriate.\n**Extended overlaps:** There are several brief overlaps ([00:05 - 00:06], [00:12 - 00:15], [00:40 - 00:43]). These are all very short (1 second or less) and occur at points where one speaker might be interjecting with a comforting remark or a diagnostic question, or the other is completing their thought as the next speaker begins. These are not \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" and actually enhance the naturalness and urgency of the conversation, especially given the context of a crisis. They do not disrupt comprehension or flow.\n**Long pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The brief pauses between [00:34 - 00:35] and [00:36 - 00:37] are minimal (1 second each) and seem natural for speakers reacting to a sudden event (A's faintness) or gathering their thoughts before responding, respectively. They are not disruptive and contribute to the realistic pacing of the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--257",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi, how are you doing?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Everything's great. And you?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: Same here. Have you seen any new films recently?\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: No, I haven't had a chance to. But I've been watching a Chinese TV series called Chinese-Style Divorce.\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker A: Oh, really? I saw it two years ago. It's worth seeing and it's thought-provoking.\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker B: Yeah. I found it is so close to the way\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but what do you think about the main characters? Their struggles seemed so real to me.\n[00:28 - 00:38] Speaker B: Absolutely, their struggles really hit home. Especially how it reflects some of our difficulties in this ever-changing world. By the way, I was about to say it's so close to our life.\n[00:38 - 00:43] Speaker A: You said it. You know, the divorce rate has been on the rise in recent years.\n[00:44 - 00:48] Speaker B: Well, it's said that a lot of young people favor getting married quickly which tends to lead\n[00:47 - 00:52] Speaker A: Oh, that reminds me, do you think this trend is more about societal pressure or personal choice?\n[00:52 - 00:56] Speaker B: It could be a mix of both, but I know a couple who divorced a week after getting married.\n[00:57 - 00:58] Speaker A: Oh, that's too short-lived.\n[00:59 - 01:03] Speaker B: That's true. It's said the short-lived marriage is typical of the post-80s generation.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate excellent logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- The conversation begins with natural greetings and transitions smoothly to asking about films.\n- Speaker B introduces a TV series, which Speaker A acknowledges and comments on, showing a shared understanding of the topic.\n- When Speaker A interrupts, they apologize and their question about the main characters' struggles is highly relevant to Speaker B's incomplete thought about the show being \"close to the way\" or \"close to our life.\" Speaker B confirms this by elaborating and finishing their original thought.\n- The discussion then naturally pivots from the show's themes to the broader societal issue of divorce rates, directly stemming from the idea of the show being \"close to our life.\"\n- Speaker B offers a reason for the rising divorce rate, which Speaker A then expands upon by asking about societal pressure vs. personal choice, maintaining topical relevance.\n- Speaker B answers the question and provides a relevant anecdote, to which Speaker A reacts appropriately.\n- Speaker B concludes by tying the anecdote back to a broader trend (\"typical of the post-80s generation\").\nAll turns build on previous ones, making the dialogue flow logically and coherently.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - [00:20 - 00:22] Speaker B: Yeah. I found it is so close to the way\n    - [00:21 - 00:28] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but what do you think about the main characters? Their struggles seemed so real to me.\n    This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A explicitly says \"Sorry to jump in,\" acknowledging the overlap, which makes it acceptable and natural in conversational dynamics. The interruption leads to a relevant, deeper question.\n    - [00:44 - 00:48] Speaker B: Well, it's said that a lot of young people favor getting married quickly which tends to lead\n    - [00:47 - 00:52] Speaker A: Oh, that reminds me, do you think this trend is more about societal pressure or personal choice?\n    This is also a 1-second overlap. Speaker A's interruption, \"Oh, that reminds me,\" indicates a quick connection to Speaker B's unfinished thought, leading to a natural and relevant follow-up question. This type of brief, enthusiastic overlap is common in fluent, engaged conversations.\n- There are no long pauses indicated by the timestamps; the conversation flows without significant gaps between turns.\nOverall, the brief overlaps are not detrimental and are managed naturally within the conversation, and the pacing suggests good interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--136998",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: What do you want? Why are you lurking around my house?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: I'm not sure. I just feel like I need to be here,\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Wait, you *need* to be here? That sounds pretty serious. Are you in some kind of trouble?\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B: I don't know. I can't remember anything. All I know is that I need to be here.\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker A: Do you mean you can't remember who you are or what you're supposed to do here?\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker B: Both. Everything is a blank. The only thing I know is that I need to be here.\n[00:25 - 00:32] Speaker A: But why? Why this place specifically? Does it seem familiar, or is there something else drawing you here?\n[00:33 - 00:36] Speaker B: I don't know. It's like there's something pulling me here. I can't explain it.\n[00:37 - 00:43] Speaker A: Is there anything else you can tell me? Anything at all that might help me understand what's going on?\n[00:44 - 00:52] Speaker B: I'm sorry, I wish I could help, but I don't know anything else. I just feel like something is missing, like a piece of the puzzle is right here, but I can't see it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's questions consistently follow up on Speaker B's previous statements, demonstrating active listening and an attempt to understand the unusual situation. For example, Speaker A picks up on \"I need to be here\" and probes for more details (\"Wait, you *need* to be here? That sounds pretty serious. Are you in some kind of trouble?\"). Similarly, Speaker A clarifies \"can't remember anything\" with \"Do you mean you can't remember who you are or what you're supposed to do here?\". Speaker B's responses are direct and consistent with the established premise of amnesia and an unexplained compulsion to be at Speaker A's house. The topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on Speaker B's identity, memory, and reason for being there. There are no illogical jumps or contradictory statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that disrupt the flow of the conversation. The brief overlaps (e.g., [00:06 - 00:07] and [00:20 - 00:22]) are very short, lasting less than a second, and are typical of natural, overlapping speech where one speaker anticipates or responds quickly to the other, rather than being disruptive. Similarly, the pauses between turns (e.g., [00:32 - 00:33], [00:36 - 00:37], [00:43 - 00:44]) are consistently one second or less, indicating smooth turn-taking without awkward silence. These brief pauses allow for natural processing time without feeling prolonged or uncomfortable. The conversation flows very naturally.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--592",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What are you working on?\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm not working right now. I'm taking a class on AI and machine learning.\n[00:05 - 00:14] Speaker A: Interesting! I've always wanted to learn about programming languages. It's such a cool skill to have. Have you ever thought about\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker B: Oh, absolutely! Programming languages open up so many opportunities. I know Java pretty well. I'm excited to see what ML has to offer!\n[00:21 - 00:23] Speaker A: Do you think you will have a career in it?\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: Maybe, but I'm not sure yet. What about you? Do you know many programming languages?\n[00:29 - 00:38] Speaker A: I learned some basic languages in college like Python and JavaScript. I've also done some web design, which is kind of a creative\n[00:36 - 00:40] Speaker B: Web design is fascinating! How did you get into it?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement, maintaining clear topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial response about AI/ML is a direct answer to Speaker A's question.\n- Speaker A's follow-up about programming languages naturally expands on Speaker B's studies.\n- Speaker B's enthusiasm for programming languages and ML logically follows A's comment.\n- Speaker A's question about a career is a coherent progression from B's learning.\n- Speaker B skillfully shifts the topic back to A by asking about their programming language knowledge, showing good conversational turn-taking.\n- Speaker A's answer is precise and introduces web design, which Speaker B immediately picks up on with a relevant question.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses, abrupt topic shifts without proper transition, or logical inconsistencies. The conversation flows very naturally and coherently.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is also very good.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the longest pause detected is 1 second (00:23 - 00:24), which is a normal, acceptable small pause.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - [00:13 - 00:14]: Speaker B starts at 00:13 while Speaker A is speaking until 00:14. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A was trailing off with \"Have you ever thought about\", making Speaker B's \"Oh, absolutely!\" a natural, eager interjection of agreement.\n    - [00:36 - 00:38]: Speaker B starts at 00:36 while Speaker A is speaking until 00:38. This is a 2-second overlap. Speaker A was saying \"which is kind of a creative\", and Speaker B interjected with \"Web design is fascinating!\". This overlap also feels like an enthusiastic affirmation and a natural lead-in to Speaker B's follow-up question, rather than a disruptive interruption.\nThese brief overlaps are consistent with natural, engaged human conversation and do not constitute \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlapping turns as per the criteria. They indicate active listening and engagement rather than communication breakdown.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--3074",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Wow, we're finally here! This has been such an amazing trip. I can't believe how much we've seen in such a short amount of time.\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker B: I know, it has been pretty crazy. But it has also been a lot of fun. I'm glad you decided to come along on this impromptu adventure with me.\n[00:16 - 00:26] Speaker A: Yeah, me too! I've always wanted to do something like this, just pack up and go on a road trip without any planning or destination in mind. It's been really liberating.\n[00:26 - 00:39] Speaker B: Yeah, I can see that. You seem like you've really enjoyed yourself. But I have to say, I'm kind of surprised that you were so spontaneous about this whole thing. You usually seem like the type of person who likes to plan everything down to\n[00:38 - 00:47] Speaker A: Oh, speaking of planning, did you notice we never even had to use the emergency kit? I was sure we'd need it at some point during the trip.\n[00:47 - 00:55] Speaker B: That's true, we got lucky! But going back to what I was saying, it's just that you usually plan everything out in advance, so this was a nice change to see.\n[00:56 - 01:04] Speaker A: Yeah, I know. I guess I just wanted to try something different for once. And it's been great! I'm already thinking about doing it again sometime\n[01:03 - 01:09] Speaker B: Wait, are you thinking of doing another spontaneous trip soon? Because if you are, I'm definitely in!\n[01:09 - 01:14] Speaker A: Absolutely! If you're ever up for another adventure, count me in!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence throughout most of the conversation. Speaker A's initial statements and Speaker B's responses build upon each other naturally, discussing the enjoyment and spontaneity of their trip. Speaker B's observation about Speaker A's usual planning habits is a direct and coherent follow-up to Speaker A's previous comments about the liberating nature of a spontaneous trip.\n\nThere is one minor deviation in topic coherence at [00:38 - 00:47] where Speaker A interjects with a comment about the emergency kit (\"Oh, speaking of planning, did you notice we never even had to use the emergency kit?\") while Speaker B was mid-sentence discussing Speaker A's planning habits. While Speaker A's comment is loosely related to \"planning,\" it abruptly shifts from discussing personality traits to a specific, practical item. However, Speaker B quickly and effectively redirects the conversation back to the main topic at [00:47 - 00:55] (\"But going back to what I was saying...\"). This quick recovery by Speaker B demonstrates the overall coherence of the interaction, as the speakers manage to stay on track despite a brief tangent. The conversation flows logically to the end, with both speakers expressing interest in future spontaneous trips.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally very good, giving the impression of a natural conversation. There are no long pauses between turns.\n\nTwo instances of brief overlaps are detected:\n1.  **[00:38 - 00:47] Speaker A overlaps with [00:26 - 00:39] Speaker B**: Speaker A starts speaking at 00:38 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:39, resulting in a 1-second overlap. In this case, Speaker A also interrupts Speaker B and introduces a slightly new topic, which could be seen as a minor disruption.\n2.  **[01:03 - 01:09] Speaker B overlaps with [00:56 - 01:04] Speaker A**: Speaker B starts speaking at 01:03 while Speaker A is still speaking until 01:04, resulting in a 1-second overlap. This overlap seems to be an eager interjection by Speaker B, picking up on Speaker A's last phrase, which is a common and natural feature of enthusiastic conversation.\n\nAs per the instructions, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" Both overlaps are brief (1 second) and do not lead to conversational breakdown or significant misunderstanding. They contribute to the natural, spontaneous feel of the dialogue rather than indicating poor fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--218",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Could you tell me how to use the library?\n[00:02 - 00:09] Speaker B: Sure. All you need is your student ID card or admission card to check out books and read journals or magazines in the library.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: How many books am I allowed to check out at a time?\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B: Two books at a time. Except magazines or journals, they have to be read within the library\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker A: Sorry, I just want to clarify—does that mean I can't take any magazines or journals out of the library at all?\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker B: Exactly, magazines and journals must stay in the library. But you can check out two books at a time.\n[00:30 - 00:33] Speaker A: Got it. How long can I keep the books?\n[00:33 - 00:39] Speaker B: For one month. If you can't return the books in time, you'll be fined. But if you renew them, you can keep them for\n[00:38 - 00:42] Speaker A: Oh, speaking of renewing, how many times can I renew a book?\n[00:42 - 00:49] Speaker B: You can renew a book up to two times. By the way, I was going to mention that if you renew them, you can keep them longer without any fines.\n[00:50 - 00:56] Speaker A: I see. Now I want to check out two books on spoken English. Can you show me where I can find them?\n[00:57 - 00:59] Speaker B: Yes, just over there to your right.\n[00:59 - 01:01] Speaker A: Thank you very much.\n[01:01 - 01:02] Speaker B: You're welcome.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses the previous utterance or naturally progresses the conversation's topic, which is about library usage rules.\n\n*   Speaker A's initial question about using the library is met with a direct and comprehensive answer from Speaker B (ID for books/journals).\n*   Speaker A's subsequent questions (number of books, clarification on magazines, loan duration, renewal) are all logical follow-ups based on the information provided by Speaker B.\n*   Speaker B consistently provides clear, concise, and relevant answers to Speaker A's inquiries. For instance, when Speaker A asks for clarification on magazines, Speaker B confirms precisely. When Speaker A asks about renewal, Speaker B answers the \"how many times\" and adds relevant information about fines, connecting back to a previous point.\n*   The conversation maintains strong topic coherence, staying focused on library rules from start to finish. There are no sudden topic shifts or irrelevant interjections from either speaker.\n*   The final exchange where Speaker A asks for directions to books on a specific topic, and Speaker B provides them, demonstrates a natural progression from understanding the rules to applying them.\n\nThe interaction flows very well logically, indicating high response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good, with natural turn-taking and minimal, non-disruptive overlaps or pauses.\n\n*   **Overlaps:**\n    *   `[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker A` overlaps briefly with `[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B` for one second (`00:16-00:17`). This is Speaker A interjecting to clarify something Speaker B is still finishing, which is a common and natural occurrence in fluid conversation, indicating engagement rather than disruption.\n    *   `[00:38 - 00:42] Speaker A` overlaps briefly with `[00:33 - 00:39] Speaker B` for one second (`00:38-00:39`). Again, this is Speaker A picking up on a keyword (\"renew\") from Speaker B's ongoing sentence to ask a direct follow-up question. This is typical of interactive dialogue and does not impede understanding.\nBoth overlaps are very brief and do not constitute \"extended overlaps.\" They are examples of cooperative turn-taking.\n\n*   **Pauses:**\n    *   Most transitions between speakers have little to no pause (0-1 second). For example, `00:09` (B to A), `00:12` (A to B), `00:23` (A to B), `00:33` (A to B), `00:42` (A to B), `00:59` (B to A), `01:01` (A to B).\n    *   There are a couple of 1-second pauses: `00:29` (B finishes, A starts at `00:30`), `00:49` (B finishes, A starts at `00:50`), and `00:56` (A finishes, B starts at `00:57`). These are minor and natural conversational pauses, not \"long pauses\" that would indicate hesitation or a breakdown in flow.\n\nOverall, the dialogue demonstrates high interactional fluency, with smooth turn-taking and natural pacing.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--472",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: I just saw the new Martin Scorsese film. It was fantastic! I love that guy's style. What are some of your favorite films?\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker B: My favorite is Star Wars.\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker A: Oh really? What's it about?\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker B: It's about this man who wakes up in the desert on a pile of sand and doesn't know who he is or where he's from. Then,\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker A: Wow, that sounds cool! Did you ever see that other movie he did, The Departed?\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: I did! It's awesome! I loved how he took a classic tale and made it feel modern and relevant.\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker A: The Departed is one of my all-time favorites! Have you seen the new Alice in Wonderland film?\n[00:36 - 00:43] Speaker B: I did! Wasn't it great? So creative! I didn't see any of the earlier versions of the story, but I enjoyed the film very much.\n[00:43 - 00:58] Speaker A: The new version of Alice in Wonderland was very creative! My daughter and I watched it last week. We thought it was amazing how they used real math and history to make the story more interesting. What movies have you seen recently that you think had\n[00:57 - 01:01] Speaker B: I think that sounds interesting. What does the real math have to do with the story?\n[01:01 - 01:12] Speaker A: I'm not sure how you'd explain it, but it's actually pretty interesting! I haven't seen a lot of movies lately. I have a hard time finding the time with all the traveling I've been doing!\n[01:12 - 01:18] Speaker B: I know what you mean. I've been so busy with work and traveling. What about you? What kinds of movies do you like?\n[01:19 - 01:28] Speaker A: I like all kinds of movies. I like biographies, musicals, rom-coms, dramas, action films - I really like all kinds of movies.\n[01:28 - 01:31] Speaker B: Cool, me too! So, what are your favorite movies?\n[01:32 - 01:42] Speaker A: I really like Wes Anderson's movies. I also like a lot of the ones you mentioned - Departed, Goodfellas, etc. Do you have any suggestions for me?\n[01:43 - 01:44] Speaker B: Did you like Gravity?\n[01:44 - 01:52] Speaker A: I actually really liked Gravity. It was a pretty interesting film, but did you notice how they had to reuse the same shot a few times?\n[01:53 - 01:56] Speaker B: That's true. I don't think I could do what Sandra Bullock did though.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance, primarily stemming from Speaker A's conversational patterns.\n1.  **Abrupt Topic Shifts:** Speaker A frequently introduces new topics without smooth transitions or fully engaging with the current one.\n    *   At [00:18], Speaker A interrupts Speaker B's description of Star Wars (\"Then,\") to abruptly ask about \"The Departed.\" While both are movies, the sudden shift breaks the flow of B's ongoing explanation.\n    *   At [00:30], Speaker A shifts abruptly from \"The Departed\" to \"Alice in Wonderland\" without a clear connection.\n    *   At [01:01], after Speaker B asks a relevant clarifying question about \"real math and history\" in Alice in Wonderland, Speaker A responds briefly and then immediately pivots to discussing their personal travel, completely abandoning the movie topic briefly.\n2.  **Lack of Deeper Engagement with Speaker B's Contributions:** Speaker A seems more focused on introducing new topics or personal anecdotes rather than fully exploring the themes or questions raised by Speaker B. For instance, Speaker A doesn't let Speaker B finish describing Star Wars, and when Speaker B asks about the \"real math\" in Alice, Speaker A quickly moves on.\n3.  **Logical Consistency and Topic Coherence:** While the overarching theme of \"movies\" is maintained, the sub-topics lack logical consistency due to Speaker A's frequent jumps. This makes the conversation feel disjointed and less natural than a smooth exchange of ideas.\n\nSpeaker B, on the other hand, consistently demonstrates strong response relevance by either directly answering Speaker A's questions, asking clarifying follow-up questions (e.g., about Star Wars or the math in Alice), or attempting to bring the conversation back to movies (e.g., [01:12] and [01:28]). However, Speaker A's contributions significantly pull down the overall relevance and coherence of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nBased on the provided criteria, the interaction demonstrates acceptable fluency.\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** The dialogue does not contain \"extended overlaps.\" There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    *   At [00:18], Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still in mid-sentence, resulting in about a 1-second overlap.\n    *   At [00:57], Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still talking and cuts off Speaker A's sentence, resulting in about a 1-second overlap.\n    These are \"brief overlaps\" and, according to the instructions, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" They do not constitute \"prolonged overlapping turns\" which would be considered harmful.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no \"long pauses\" between speaker turns. The pauses between turns are consistently 1 second or less, which falls under \"small pauses\" and is deemed acceptable.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--674",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: How are you doing?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm doing great! What are you interested in?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: Health is always a fun topic for me. How are your health goals going?\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker B: I'm trying to eat healthier and start exercising by incorporating\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker A: What are some ways you've been trying?\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker B: My aunt gave me some products by Bliss that have really helped.\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker A: I've never heard of them, but I'll have to look them up. Do you like working out?\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker B: I've always been interested in it, but I'm definitely not a fitness expert. I'm working towards more exercise though.\n[00:29 - 00:36] Speaker A: I'm not the best either, but I think the first step is always the hardest. I'm trying to go to the gym more frequently.\n[00:37 - 00:41] Speaker B: The gym is a good place to start. Do you like being social at the gym?\n[00:41 - 00:48] Speaker A: I find that's the best way to get started with exercise. I also don't know how to cook, so having someone to show me\n[00:47 - 00:53] Speaker B: I think cooking can be really fun, but I do need some help sometimes. I'd love to have a personal chef!\n[00:54 - 00:55] Speaker A: Do you like to cook for others?\n[00:56 - 00:59] Speaker B: Of course! A good home-cooked meal always tastes better.\n[00:59 - 01:04] Speaker A: Me too! I'm sure I'll have to cook for you once you visit me in Palo Alto.\n[01:04 - 01:07] Speaker B: Sounds great! Are you up for cooking a homemade meal?\n[01:08 - 01:11] Speaker A: I have a great recipe for strawberry shortcake that you'd love!\n[01:12 - 01:14] Speaker B: That sounds great! I love good homemade food.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance throughout. Speakers consistently address the previous turn's content, maintaining logical consistency. For instance, Speaker B asks \"What are you interested in?\" and Speaker A directly answers \"Health is always a fun topic for me.\" Later, when Speaker B is discussing health goals, Speaker A interjects with a clarifying and highly relevant question: \"What are some ways you've been trying?\" The conversation flows naturally from health to exercise and then pivots to cooking. While the transition at [00:41 - 00:48] from \"social at the gym\" to \"I also don't know how to cook\" might seem a bit abrupt, Speaker B immediately picks up on it, indicating topic coherence is maintained. The speakers build on each other's points, share personal anecdotes, and ask relevant follow-up questions, leading to a coherent and engaging exchange.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the longest pauses are consistently 1 second, which is natural and allows for turn-taking. Brief overlaps are present, specifically at [00:12 - 00:14] (Speaker A overlapping Speaker B for 1 second) and [00:47 - 00:53] (Speaker B overlapping Speaker A for 1 second). These are not \"extended overlaps\" but rather very short, natural instances of speakers jumping in, often to ask for clarification or to respond quickly to an ongoing thought. As per the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these instances contribute to the natural, unscripted feel of the conversation rather than hindering it. There are no instances of speakers talking over each other for prolonged periods or awkward silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--132770",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, Sarah. I'm surprised to see you out here in this weather.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Yeah, I know. It's really coming down, isn't it?\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A: Yeah. I'm soaked through already. And my clothes are starting to feel really heavy and\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but have you thought about going inside to change? You don't want to catch a cold.\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker A: Yeah, you're probably right. But it's so nice out here. I feel really alive when it's raining like this.\n[00:25 - 00:33] Speaker B: I get that. There's something about the rain that just makes you feel more connected to everything around you. But seriously, you should think about getting dry soon.\n[00:34 - 00:41] Speaker A: Exactly! It's like all of nature is conspiring to make you feel alive. But yeah, maybe I'll head in soon.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance.\n*   **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn builds logically on the previous one. Speaker A initiates with an observation about the weather and Speaker B responds by agreeing. Speaker A then describes their discomfort, leading Speaker B to offer a practical suggestion out of concern. Speaker A acknowledges the suggestion but expresses a counter-feeling, which Speaker B validates while still maintaining the practical concern. Speaker A ultimately agrees. The conversation flows naturally from observation to shared experience, concern, and resolution.\n*   **Topic Coherence:** The core topic revolves around being out in the rain, its effects, and the different perceptions of it (discomfort vs. feeling alive). All turns remain focused on this theme, evolving from a simple observation to a deeper shared understanding and a practical suggestion. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant comments.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap between [00:12 - 00:14] where Speaker B interjects while Speaker A is speaking. This overlap lasts only 2 seconds and is immediately followed by Speaker B apologizing (\"Sorry to jump in\"). This is a common and natural conversational move, often used to express urgency, concern, or enthusiasm, and does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or harmful overlap. It demonstrates a dynamic and engaged interaction rather than a breakdown in turn-taking.\n*   **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. All transitions are quick, with pauses being only 1 second long ([00:07-00:08], [00:24-00:25], [00:33-00:34]). These brief pauses are natural and allow for smooth turn-taking, contributing to the naturalistic feel of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--704",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm sorry I'm late, I tried to run as fast as I to make\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker B: That's okay, we can still squeeze you in. Let me just check your appointment time. Yep, we can definitely do that. So what brings you in today?\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker A: I just need to get my teeth cleaned and\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, before we start, do you have any specific concerns or areas you'd like us to focus on during the cleaning?\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker A: No specific concerns, just the usual cleaning.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining clear topic coherence.\n- Speaker A's initial apology for lateness is immediately addressed by Speaker B's reassurance and a practical follow-up question (\"what brings you in today?\").\n- Speaker A's response about needing a teeth cleaning directly answers B's question.\n- Speaker B's subsequent question about specific concerns for the cleaning is a natural and relevant follow-up to A's stated purpose, showing attention to detail. Speaker B even acknowledges a potential interruption, which further enhances the interaction's quality.\n- Speaker A's final response (\"No specific concerns, just the usual cleaning\") directly answers B's query.\nThere are no instances of off-topic remarks, logical inconsistencies, or irrelevant information. The conversation flows very naturally and purposefully.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high, indicating a natural and smooth conversation.\n- There is a brief overlap of 1 second ([00:03 - 00:04]) where Speaker B starts speaking just as Speaker A is finishing. This is a \"brief overlap\" and is acceptable in natural conversation, not an \"extended overlap.\"\n- The pauses between turns are minimal:\n    - 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn ending at [00:10] and Speaker A's turn starting at [00:11]. This is a \"small pause\" and acceptable.\n    - No pause/overlap between Speaker A's turn ending at [00:13] and Speaker B's turn starting at [00:13], indicating seamless turn-taking.\n    - 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn ending at [00:19] and Speaker A's turn starting at [00:20]. This is also a \"small pause\" and acceptable.\nThe dialogue does not contain any \"prolonged pauses\" or \"extended overlaps\" that would hinder the conversation's flow. Speaker B's explicit \"Sorry to interrupt\" further indicates a high degree of interactional awareness, even if the overlap was minimal.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--43480",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Khyler. I wanted to talk to you about something.\n[00:03 - 00:03] Speaker B: What's up?\n[00:04 - 00:13] Speaker A: Well, I just wanted to let you know how I feel. I really like you, Khyler. A lot. And I was just wondering if you felt the same way or if\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but I've actually been meaning to tell you—I really like you too, Naveen.\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker A: Really? I'm so glad to hear that! I was starting to think that maybe you didn't feel the same way about the way\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker B: No, I definitely do. I think you're amazing.\n[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker A: Aw, thank you! I feel the same way about you too, Khyler.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate excellent relevance, logical consistency, and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates a delicate conversation about feelings, and Speaker B's \"What's up?\" is a natural and relevant prompt for more information. Speaker A's confession of liking Speaker B is directly and enthusiastically reciprocated by Speaker B. Subsequently, Speaker A's expression of relief and doubt is immediately addressed and reassured by Speaker B, reinforcing their feelings. Finally, Speaker A's concluding remarks perfectly fit the positive outcome of the conversation. The entire dialogue stays focused on the central theme of mutual affection, with each turn building logically on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very high. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth and natural conversational flow. There are two instances of brief overlaps ([00:12 - 00:13] and [00:22 - 00:23]), each lasting approximately one second. In the first instance, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges the interruption with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the overlap feel natural and polite, suggesting eagerness rather than rudeness. Both overlaps occur in moments of emotional intensity (Speaker B's eagerness to reciprocate feelings, and then to reassure them), which makes them feel authentic and characteristic of enthusiastic or emotionally charged speech. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these examples fit that description perfectly. They do not disrupt the understanding or the natural rhythm of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--46949",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: So, you're looking to get your finances in order and figure out a plan for the future. Do you have any idea where you want to focus your\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Honestly, I have no idea. My finances are a total mess and I have no clue where to even begin.\n[00:12 - 00:22] Speaker A: Okay, well let's start by taking a look at your income and expenses. This will give us a good idea of where your money is going and what areas we need to cut back\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B: Actually, before we dive into that, should I be worried about any immediate debts or obligations that might need urgent attention?\n[00:29 - 00:40] Speaker A: That's a good point. We should definitely prioritize any urgent debts first. But to address that effectively, we still need to know your income and expenses. So, what is your annual income?\n[00:41 - 00:43] Speaker B: Last year I made $50,000.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A** asks about where Speaker B wants to focus their financial planning.\n2.  **[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B** directly answers by stating they \"have no idea\" and that their \"finances are a total mess,\" which is a relevant and honest response to the open-ended question about focus.\n3.  **[00:12 - 00:22] Speaker A** then proposes a logical first step (\"look at your income and expenses\") given Speaker B's uncertainty and description of their finances. This maintains topic coherence.\n4.  **[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B** interjects with a question about \"immediate debts or obligations.\" While this shifts the *immediate* action, it is highly relevant to the overall goal of \"getting finances in order\" and \"figuring out a plan for the future.\" It's a proactive and important question for financial planning, indicating an understanding of potential priorities.\n5.  **[00:29 - 00:40] Speaker A** acknowledges Speaker B's point as \"a good point\" and agrees to \"prioritize any urgent debts first.\" This shows good logical flow and responsiveness to Speaker B's concern. Speaker A then skillfully connects this back to the initial plan by explaining that income and expenses are still needed to \"address that effectively,\" before asking a specific question about income. This demonstrates excellent logical consistency.\n6.  **[00:41 - 00:43] Speaker B** provides a direct and relevant answer to Speaker A's specific question about annual income.\nAll turns build upon each other logically, address the core topic, and adapt appropriately to new, relevant information introduced by the other speaker.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good interactional fluency, resembling natural conversation with acceptable timing.\n1.  **[00:06 - 00:07] Overlap:** Speaker B starts speaking at 00:06 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:07. This is a 1-second overlap, which is brief and common in natural conversation, indicating active listening and turn-taking without being disruptive. It's a \"brief overlap\" which is acceptable.\n2.  **[00:21 - 00:22] Overlap:** Speaker B starts speaking at 00:21 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:22. Again, this is a 1-second overlap, which is brief and acceptable, functioning as an interjection rather than a conversational breakdown.\n3.  **[00:28 - 00:29] Pause:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn ending at 00:28 and Speaker A's turn beginning at 00:29. This is a \"small pause\" and is perfectly acceptable for processing information and formulating a response.\n4.  **[00:40 - 00:41] Pause:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn ending at 00:40 and Speaker B's turn beginning at 00:41. Another \"small pause\" that is natural and acceptable.\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would indicate a problem with the flow of the conversation. The timing feels natural and supports the smooth exchange of information.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--421",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Have you ever cooked before?\n[00:02 - 00:02] Speaker B: Never!\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: What kinds of things do you like to cook?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: I like to make pies. My mom makes incredible pecan pies!\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: I can see why! What about baking?\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker B: I've never tried baking, but maybe I will try it soon!\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker A: My husband loves baking too. He makes the best cakes!\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker B: So you have experience with both types of baking. Have you ever cooked anything before?\n[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker A: I've had to cook for my kids sometimes, but I don't like it much.\n[00:29 - 00:32] Speaker B: That's too bad. I love to cook. I especially enjoy cooking for other people.\n[00:33 - 00:35] Speaker A: What's your favorite dish to make?\n[00:35 - 00:36] Speaker B: Probably salmon.\n[00:36 - 00:40] Speaker A: That's awesome. I love salmon. Where do you usually go to buy\n[00:39 - 00:43] Speaker B: Oh, I actually don't go fishing too often. Mostly I just buy it from the store!\n[00:43 - 00:47] Speaker A: Got it! Maybe you could do a cooking class - you'd be a great teacher.\n[00:48 - 00:56] Speaker B: Thanks! I'd love to do a cooking class someday. If you haven't heard of this new virtual reality experience, Cooking with Isabella - it's really great!\n[00:57 - 01:00] Speaker A: That's cool. Where can I try this virtual\n[00:59 - 01:03] Speaker B: Oh, sorry to jump in, you can try it on VR4Immersive.com.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and topic coherence throughout. Speakers consistently answer questions, build upon previous statements, and introduce related topics naturally.\n\nSpecific points:\n- **Logical Consistency:**\n    - Speaker B's statement \"I like to make pies\" followed by \"I've never tried baking\" (when pies are a form of baking) is a minor logical inconsistency. However, it doesn't disrupt the flow or understanding of the conversation significantly, as Speaker B might be differentiating between specific actions or types of baking.\n    - Speaker B's misunderstanding of \"Where do you usually go to buy [salmon]?\" as an inquiry about fishing is a slight misinterpretation, but Speaker B's response (\"I actually don't go fishing too often. Mostly I just buy it from the store!\") is logically consistent with their misinterpretation. Speaker A clarifies quickly with \"Got it!\", preventing any major derailment.\n- **Topic Coherence:** The conversation flows smoothly from cooking in general to specific dishes (pies, salmon), personal experiences, and even a related VR experience. Each turn builds on the previous one, maintaining a clear conversational thread. The switch to the VR experience is a natural recommendation based on the cooking class discussion.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high.\n- **Pauses:** Pauses between turns are consistently short (0-1 second), indicating a natural and responsive conversation pace without any disruptive long silences.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps detected (each 1 second):\n    - [00:39 - 00:43] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A briefly. This seems like Speaker B interjecting or anticipating Speaker A's question, leading to the minor misunderstanding about buying/fishing. It's brief and doesn't cause a breakdown.\n    - [00:59 - 01:03] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A and explicitly apologizes (\"Oh, sorry to jump in\"). This acknowledgment makes the overlap feel like a natural part of dynamic conversation, demonstrating conversational awareness rather than a flaw.\nBoth overlaps are brief and do not represent prolonged or harmful overlapping turns. They contribute to a natural, lively conversational feel.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--106091",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Diamonique, I'm so sorry that you're going through this. I know how hard it is to lose someone you care about deeply,\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: I just can't believe it's over. We were so good together. I don't understand what went wrong.\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker A: I think the first step is accepting that it's really over. It's hard, but you need to give yourself\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker B: I don't know if I can do that.\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker A: Yes, you can. You're strong and you've been through tough times before. This is just another obstacle that you'll overcome.\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker B: I don't know, Kekoa. I feel like I'm never going to find someone else who loves me as much as he did.\n[00:32 - 00:40] Speaker A: Don't say that, Diamonique. You're an amazing person and there are plenty of people out there who would be lucky to have you in their lives.\n[00:40 - 00:44] Speaker B: Thanks, Kekoa. Just hearing you say that makes me feel a little better.\n[00:44 - 00:48] Speaker A: That's the first step, Diamonique. Now let's get some ice cream!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue exhibit strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A consistently provides empathy, advice, and encouragement, directly addressing Speaker B's emotional state and expressed doubts. Speaker B's turns are direct reactions to Speaker A's input, reflecting their struggle and gradual acceptance of support. The conversation remains focused on the theme of dealing with a difficult breakup and emotional healing throughout. There are no sudden topic shifts or irrelevant remarks. For instance, Speaker A's suggestion of \"accepting that it's really over\" is directly followed by Speaker B's expression of difficulty (\"I don't know if I can do that\"), which Speaker A then counters with encouragement. This demonstrates a clear and consistent conversational thread.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns; in fact, most transitions are immediate, indicating an engaged and flowing conversation. There is one instance of a brief overlap: Speaker B's \"I don't know if I can do that\" starts at [00:17] while Speaker A's previous turn ends at [00:18]. This overlap lasts for approximately 1 second. As per the criteria, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This brief overlap is natural in an empathetic conversation where one person is reacting quickly to advice, and it does not hinder understanding or disrupt the flow. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth and natural, contributing to an excellent interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--108777",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Warren! I'm so glad you called. How are you doing?\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: I'm doing great! Just had a busy week at work, but other than that things are good. How about you? What's new with you?\n[00:11 - 00:20] Speaker A: Oh, not much. Just been hanging out with friends and family. Did some hiking and exploring over the weekend. It was really refreshing to\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker B: Oh, hiking? That sounds awesome! Where did you go?\n[00:22 - 00:30] Speaker A: We went to this trail up in the mountains. The views were incredible, especially at the summit. I wish you could have been there.\n[00:30 - 00:34] Speaker B: Yeah, it would have been great if you could have come. Maybe next time.\n[00:34 - 00:40] Speaker A: Definitely. So, what else is new? Anything exciting happening in your life?\n[00:40 - 00:46] Speaker B: Well, I am planning on taking a trip to Europe this summer. I'm really excited about exploring different\n[00:45 - 00:52] Speaker A: Europe? That's fantastic! Have you already started planning, or are you still figuring things out?\n[00:52 - 00:58] Speaker B: I'm still figuring things out. I want to go to a few different countries, but I haven't decided which ones yet.\n[00:58 - 01:03] Speaker A: That's definitely the best way to do it. What countries are you considering?\n[01:03 - 01:10] Speaker B: France, Spain, Italy, and Greece are at the top of my list right now. But we'll see where the wind takes me when the time comes.\n[01:11 - 01:18] Speaker A: Sounds like a perfect plan! Let me know when you decide for sure where you're going so I can live vicariously through you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and topic coherence overall. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, and the conversation flows naturally between topics introduced by either speaker (e.g., A's hiking, B's Europe trip). Questions are answered directly, and follow-up questions are relevant to the preceding statements.\n\nOne minor point of logical inconsistency occurs at `[00:30 - 00:34]`. Speaker A says, \"I wish you could have been there,\" implying Speaker B missed out. Speaker B responds, \"Yeah, it would have been great if you could have come. Maybe next time.\" This phrasing suggests Speaker B is referring to Speaker A having missed out, which is a misattribution of the subject. While the general intent of acknowledging the missed opportunity is understood, the pronoun usage creates a slight logical flaw. However, this is a very minor issue and does not significantly disrupt the coherence or understanding of the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The dialogue features brief, natural overlaps, such as at `[00:19 - 00:22]` and `[00:45 - 00:52]`. These overlaps are short (approximately 1 second) and indicative of enthusiastic engagement and active listening, rather than disruptive interruptions. There are no noticeable long pauses between speaker turns, contributing to a smooth and natural conversational flow. The turn-taking is swift and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--160",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi, Peter. I didn't see you last night. Where did you go?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: I was almost on line the whole time, actually.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: Online? Were you playing network games the whole night?\n[00:09 - 00:18] Speaker B: No, I listened to music, too. But actually, I wanted to mention something else about last night. You remember that playlist you recommended? I finally got around to listening to it, and—\n[00:19 - 00:27] Speaker A: Oh, I'm glad you did! What did you think of it? Also, you mentioned you were online the whole night, but what are you going to do now?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits generally good response relevance.\n*   Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's question about their whereabouts.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up question on \"online\" is a logical clarification.\n*   Speaker B's correction and attempt to introduce the playlist topic are coherent, as it relates to \"last night\" as Speaker B initially wanted to discuss something else about \"last night.\"\n*   However, Speaker A's final turn, while acknowledging the playlist topic, abruptly shifts to \"what are you going to do now?\" This feels like a forced topic change, pulling the conversation from a point Speaker B was about to elaborate on (the playlist) back to an earlier, more general topic (being online) but with a new timeframe (now). This part slightly diminishes the logical consistency and natural flow of the topic, as it interrupts B's intended narrative about the playlist and diverts it to a less immediate concern. It's not completely irrelevant, but it's not the most natural next step in the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency has some notable issues.\n*   There's a brief overlap between [00:05 - 00:06] where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This overlap lasts about 1 second. This is a very common and often acceptable characteristic of natural conversation and does not significantly hinder understanding or flow, as Speaker B completes their thought.\n*   A more significant issue occurs at [00:19]. Speaker B is clearly cut off mid-sentence (\"...and—\"). Speaker A interrupts before B can complete their thought or elaborate on the playlist. This is a harmful interruption as it prevents the speaker from finishing their turn and disrupts the natural conversational flow, making the interaction less fluid and natural. There are no long pauses between turns; turns are generally quick, except for the interruption.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--126803",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey McCoy, how's it going?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm doing fine, thank you. How have you\n[00:02 - 00:08] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I just wanted to say hi and let you know that I appreciate you being here.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: It's no problem. I'm happy to help out however I can.\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: That's great. So, what do you think of the event so far?\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: It's been really fun. I've enjoyed meeting new people and seeing all the different activities they\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker A: Exhibits, right? Yeah, it's been a lot of fun for me too. I'm glad you're enjoying it.\n[00:27 - 00:29] Speaker B: I am. Thank you for including me.\n[00:29 - 00:32] Speaker A: Of course. I'm happy to have you here with us.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- **Initial Greetings:** Speaker A greets Speaker B, and Speaker B responds naturally.\n- **Expression of Appreciation:** Speaker A then expresses appreciation, which Speaker B acknowledges gracefully. This flows well, establishing a positive tone.\n- **Transition to Event Discussion:** Speaker A transitions smoothly to asking about the event, a relevant topic given Speaker A's earlier statement \"I appreciate you being here\" and the implied context of an event. Speaker B provides a coherent response about enjoying the event.\n- **Clarification/Anticipation:** Speaker A's interjection \"Exhibits, right?\" at [00:21] is a good example of logical engagement, anticipating Speaker B's thought and helping to complete it. This shows active listening and maintains coherence.\n- **Positive Affirmation:** The conversation concludes with Speaker B expressing enjoyment and thanks, and Speaker A affirming their welcome, which is a logical and positive wrap-up.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses, topic shifts, or inconsistencies. The conversation progresses naturally and logically.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits several instances of extended overlaps that negatively impact fluency.\n- **[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm doing fine, thank you. How have you**\n- **[00:02 - 00:08] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I just wanted to say hi and let you know that I appreciate you being here.**\nThis is a significant overlap of 2 seconds where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B's polite question (\"How have you\") before Speaker B can complete it. Speaker A even acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry to jump in\"). This indicates a lack of turn-taking fluidity.\n\n- **[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: It's been really fun. I've enjoyed meeting new people and seeing all the different activities they**\n- **[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker A: Exhibits, right? Yeah, it's been a lot of fun for me too. I'm glad you're enjoying it.**\nHere, Speaker A overlaps Speaker B for a full second, interrupting Speaker B's sentence before it is complete. While Speaker A correctly anticipates what Speaker B was going to say (\"exhibits\"), the timing of the interjection creates a prolonged overlap rather than a brief, natural one.\n\nThere are no noticeable long pauses between speaker turns. However, the presence of multiple prolonged overlaps, especially the one where Speaker A explicitly apologizes for interrupting, indicates significant issues with interactional fluency. The conversation does not flow as smoothly as it should due to these extended interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--486",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi. What's up?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Nothing much. What's new with you?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: Not too much. I've been pretty overwhelmed with\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but I just remembered—did you manage to finish that report you were working on last week?\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker A: Oh, I did finish it, but I was saying I've been pretty busy lately. How about you?\n[00:17 - 00:20] Speaker B: Me too. Seems like all I do is eat and sleep.\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker A: Gotta go. Call me tonight?\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B: Sure, but before you go, did you want to tell me something else about being busy?\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker A: Oh, right! Just wanted to mention that I've also been swamped with some new projects at work. Anyway, I'll talk to you later.\n[00:34 - 00:36] Speaker B: Okay. Check you later.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Speaker B introduces a new topic (the report) with an explicit apology for interrupting Speaker A, which is a common and acceptable way to manage topic shifts in natural conversation. Speaker A then competently addresses the interruption, answers the question, and attempts to return to their original point about being busy. Crucially, Speaker B later remembers Speaker A's unfinished thought about being busy (\"did you want to tell me something else about being busy?\"), prompting Speaker A to complete it. This shows excellent logical consistency and topic coherence, as a loose thread from earlier in the conversation is successfully tied up before the call ends. Both speakers track the conversation well and respond appropriately to direct questions and implicit conversational cues.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is high. There is one instance of an overlap where Speaker B cuts in on Speaker A. However, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption (\"Sorry to cut in\"), which transforms a potential fluency issue into a natural conversational element, demonstrating politeness and awareness. There are no extended overlaps. The pauses between turns are brief (1 second at most), which are typical for natural conversation and do not indicate awkwardness or a breakdown in communication. The flow feels organic and unforced.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--83398",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Mom.\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Hey, son. What's up?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: Not much. Just got out of class.\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker B: How was your day?\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: It was good. I got in a little trouble for my behavior, but nothing too serious. Just\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker B: What kind of trouble? Are you okay?\n[00:14 - 00:22] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm fine. I was just goofing around with my friends and didn't listen when the teacher told us to stop. So she gave me detention.\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B: That doesn't sound too bad. Just make sure you listen to the teacher next time, okay?\n[00:27 - 00:29] Speaker A: Yeah, I will.\n[00:29 - 00:31] Speaker B: Do you want to talk about anything else?\n[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker A: No, not really. Just tired from staying\n[00:33 - 00:35] Speaker B: Did you have a lot of homework today?\n[00:35 - 00:40] Speaker A: Not too much, just a bit draining. I think I'll go take a break now.\n[00:41 - 00:44] Speaker B: Okay, well why don't you go take a break and we can talk more later?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or follows up on the previous one, maintaining a clear and natural conversational flow.\n- Speaker B's initial \"What's up?\" and \"How was your day?\" are appropriate follow-ups to Speaker A's greeting and \"just got out of class.\"\n- Speaker B's immediate \"What kind of trouble? Are you okay?\" shows concern and directly follows Speaker A's mention of \"trouble,\" demonstrating logical consistency.\n- Speaker A's detailed explanation about the detention is a direct answer to Speaker B's questions.\n- Speaker B's advice (\"Just make sure you listen to the teacher next time\") is a natural parental response.\n- The transition by Speaker B (\"Do you want to talk about anything else?\") is a coherent way to check for further topics.\n- Speaker B's follow-up question (\"Did you have a lot of homework today?\") after Speaker A mentions being \"tired from staying\" is a reasonable inference and maintains topic coherence within the context of school and daily life.\n- The conversation ends naturally with Speaker B acknowledging Speaker A's need for a break and suggesting talking later.\nThere are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the conversation flows smoothly and promptly.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - Speaker A ([00:07 - 00:13]) is overlapped by Speaker B ([00:12 - 00:14]). This overlap occurs when Speaker A is mid-sentence, and Speaker B interjects with a question of concern (\"What kind of trouble? Are you okay?\"). This is a very common and natural type of overlap in spontaneous conversation, especially when one speaker is showing immediate concern or eagerness to understand.\n    - Speaker A ([00:31 - 00:34]) is overlapped by Speaker B ([00:33 - 00:35]). Speaker A says \"Just tired from staying\" and Speaker B interjects with \"Did you have a lot of homework today?\". This again appears to be a natural, brief interruption, possibly Speaker B anticipating or inferring the reason for Speaker A's tiredness.\nBoth overlaps are brief and do not disrupt the flow or understanding of the conversation. They contribute to the naturalness of the dialogue rather than detracting from it, aligning with the guideline that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--665",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Have you ever tried building a PC from scratch?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: I built one years ago. It was pretty fun.\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: It sounds fun! My friend lent me a nice case, but now I want to make my own.\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: Yeah it's pretty fun! I'm not sure where to start with selecting\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I think starting with the processor might be a good idea. Do you know much about processors?\n[00:21 - 00:30] Speaker B: Yeah, I would be interested in Intel's latest chips. It seems like Intel wants to push forward with smaller, faster chips with less power consumption, which\n[00:29 - 00:37] Speaker A: That's really interesting. But don't you think AMD's latest chips are also worth considering, especially for gaming?\n[00:37 - 00:41] Speaker B: That's a good point. I would also like to buy a new graphics card too.\n[00:41 - 00:45] Speaker A: You should look at the Radeon RX 5600 XT series.\n[00:46 - 00:48] Speaker B: I will, thanks for the recommendation.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence throughout.\n- Speaker B's initial response ([00:03 - 00:05]) directly answers Speaker A's question about PC building.\n- Speaker A's subsequent statement ([00:05 - 00:11]) builds on Speaker B's experience and expresses a personal goal, remaining within the \"PC building\" topic.\n- Speaker B's incomplete sentence ([00:11 - 00:14]), expressing uncertainty about where to start, naturally prompts Speaker A's suggestion of \"processor\" as a starting point ([00:13 - 00:20]).\n- The discussion then delves into specific PC components: processors (Intel vs. AMD) and graphics cards (Radeon RX 5600 XT). These are all logically connected sub-topics within the main theme of building a PC.\n- Speaker B's shift from processors to graphics cards ([00:37 - 00:41]) is a natural progression when discussing PC components, and Speaker A's recommendation directly addresses this new interest.\nThere are no irrelevant tangents or illogical leaps in the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is very good.\n- **Extended Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps identified:\n    - [00:13 - 00:14]: Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing a sentence. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A explicitly apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating awareness and mitigating any potential disruption. This is a common and natural occurrence in informal conversation, showing engagement rather than a breakdown in turn-taking.\n    - [00:29 - 00:30]: Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing a sentence. This is also a 1-second overlap. Again, this is a brief, natural interjection.\nNeither of these overlaps are \"extended\" or \"prolonged\"; they are typical of dynamic, engaged conversation and do not harm the flow.\n- **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n    - [00:02 - 00:03]: 1-second pause.\n    - [00:05 - 00:05]: 0-second pause (immediate).\n    - [00:11 - 00:11]: 0-second pause (immediate).\n    - [00:14 - 00:21]: This gap is due to the transcription showing the start/end times of A's turn (ends 00:20) and B's turn (starts 00:21). The actual pause between A finishing and B starting is 1 second (00:20 to 00:21).\n    - [00:30 - 00:29]: This indicates an overlap, not a pause.\n    - [00:37 - 00:37]: 0-second pause (immediate).\n    - [00:41 - 00:41]: 0-second pause (immediate).\n    - [00:45 - 00:46]: 1-second pause.\nAll pauses are brief and contribute to a natural conversational rhythm. The immediate turn-taking at several points further indicates high engagement.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--134633",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm really enjoying this art class. I never knew I had a talent for painting.\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: That's great to hear, Shawnna. It sounds like you've found a real passion in painting. What do you enjoy most about experimenting with\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I just have to share—I'm selling some of my paintings now, which is really exciting!\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker B: That's wonderful! It sounds like you're really thriving in this class. What kind of personal touches do you add to your paintings?\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: I love being able to add my own unique colors and textures. It's a great way for me to express myself creatively.\n[00:32 - 00:33] Speaker B: Keep up the good work, Shawnna!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance.\n*   Speaker B's initial response (0:05-0:11) directly acknowledges Speaker A's enjoyment and talent, and asks a relevant follow-up question about what Speaker A enjoys most. This maintains logical consistency and topic coherence.\n*   Speaker A's interjection (0:11-0:17) about selling paintings, while an interruption, is a direct and exciting development stemming from the art class topic. It's highly relevant to the initial discussion of talent and passion. Speaker A even self-corrects by saying \"Sorry to jump in,\" which acknowledges the conversational dynamic.\n*   Speaker B's subsequent response (0:17-0:23) affirms Speaker A's news (\"That's wonderful!\") and connects it to \"thriving in this class,\" demonstrating excellent topic coherence. The question about \"personal touches\" is a natural progression, encouraging Speaker A to elaborate on their unique artistic expression.\n*   Speaker A's answer (0:24-0:31) directly addresses the question about personal touches, reinforcing the theme of self-expression through art.\n*   Speaker B's final remark (0:32-0:33) acts as a positive closing statement, acknowledging Speaker A's progress and contributions. While a bit abrupt as an ending, it is relevant as encouragement.\nOverall, the conversation flows logically, and each turn builds coherently on the previous one, maintaining a clear focus on Speaker A's experience with the art class and painting.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe interaction demonstrates good fluency.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one clear overlap identified: Speaker A begins at 0:11 while Speaker B's turn ends at 0:11. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which indicates self-awareness and manages the overlap gracefully. This is a brief, natural interjection driven by excitement, rather than a prolonged or disruptive overlap. As per the instructions, \"brief overlaps... are acceptable.\"\n*   **Pauses:**\n    *   [0:04 - 0:05]: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n    *   [0:11 - 0:11]: 0-second pause (overlap). As discussed, acceptable given the context and self-correction.\n    *   [0:17 - 0:17]: 0-second pause. Acceptable.\n    *   [0:23 - 0:24]: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\n    *   [0:31 - 0:32]: 1-second pause. Acceptable.\nThere are no long or prolonged pauses between turns. The pacing feels natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--302",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Can I help you?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: I need some stamps for this letter.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: What kind of stamps do you [interrupt]\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Oh, actually, before we discuss the stamps, could you tell me how much I need for this letter?\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A: I must weigh it first. Err... It's five grams over weigh. Do you want to send it as an ordinary or registered letter?\n[00:17 - 00:20] Speaker B: I want it registered. How much is it then?\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker A: Registration plus overnight... err... seven dollars in all.\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker B: Here's a 10-dollar bill. Oh, and you were asking about the kind of stamps earlier—what options do you have?\n[00:32 - 00:41] Speaker A: Yes, I was about to. We have several options, but for this letter, you don't really need a specific kind. Now, your receipt, and the change.\n[00:41 - 00:42] Speaker B: Thanks. Good-bye.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency.\nSpeaker B's initial request for stamps is directly addressed by Speaker A.\nSpeaker B's interruption at [00:04 - 00:09] is not a topic deviation but a logical re-prioritization of information needed for sending a letter (cost/weight before stamp type), which is a perfectly coherent and relevant intervention in the process. Speaker A adapts to this change smoothly.\nSpeaker A's responses throughout are accurate and directly address Speaker B's questions and needs (weighing, options, cost).\nSpeaker B then circles back to the original question about stamps, which Speaker A addresses appropriately while also concluding the transaction.\nThe conversation flows logically from one step of the transaction to the next, with all turns maintaining topic coherence and contributing to the goal of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\nThere is one brief overlap at [00:03 - 00:05] where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. This is explicitly marked as `[interrupt]`. However, this overlap is very short and serves a functional purpose (Speaker B taking control of the flow to ask a more pressing question). Speaker A immediately yields, and the conversation continues smoothly without confusion or repetition. This kind of brief, functional overlap is common in natural human conversation and does not hinder understanding or flow.\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns. The gaps between turns are typically 1 second or less, which is natural and contributes to a smooth, conversational rhythm. For example, [00:00-00:00] A speaks, [00:01-00:03] B speaks (1-second gap). This pattern holds throughout the dialogue.\nOverall, the interaction feels natural and efficient.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--469",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I read that you are into cheese making. Have you ever made cheese?\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: Sure, I have made cheese! I've made brie, feta, cheddar, swiss, and parmesan. Are you interested in cheese making too?\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker A: Yes, actually. I've been meaning to start experimenting with cheese making. Have you made mozzarella?\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: I actually haven't, but I am planning to try it soon! Would you like to try making some cheese with me?\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker A: Yes! Can you give me some pointers?\n[00:26 - 00:33] Speaker B: I can, but I think the best place to start is by getting yourself a cow. You will need a cow to get milk for your cheese and it\n[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker A: Wait, do you really need a cow? Can't you use store-bought milk?\n[00:36 - 00:51] Speaker B: Yes, you can use store-bought milk, but having a cow gives you fresh milk, which is ideal for cheese making. Now, about the cow, they typically cost around $3,000. If you want to save money, you can buy a steer instead, and it will cost about $1,000.\n[00:51 - 00:56] Speaker A: Oh wow! I never knew you could buy a cow for that cheap! Are they very much work?\n[00:57 - 01:05] Speaker B: Well, a cow is a lot of work, but it also is pretty nice to have a friend. In addition to being able to get milk, a cow can help with other household chores.\n[01:06 - 01:15] Speaker A: That is true! They don't have very good memories though. My corgi's memory is really bad - he doesn't even remember my commands sometimes,\n[01:14 - 01:18] Speaker B: Oh, speaking of chores, what kind of chores can a cow help with?\n[01:18 - 01:27] Speaker A: Cows can help with things like plowing fields and even providing manure for your garden. But back to my corgi, he doesn't even remember my voice!\n[01:27 - 01:33] Speaker B: Haha! I bet your corgi would make a great cow though. I bet he is a very friendly and affectionate pet.\n[01:33 - 01:38] Speaker A: Yes, he's pretty great. Are you able to tell me more about cow ownership?\n[01:38 - 01:42] Speaker B: Sure, if you are interested I will walk you through how to take care of your cow!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains good response relevance. Speaker B introduces a whimsical but consistently maintained tangent about needing a cow for cheese making, which Speaker A largely plays along with. The logical consistency within this unusual premise is maintained. For example, Speaker A questions the need for a cow, and Speaker B explains why they believe it's ideal, even discussing costs and additional \"household chores\" for a cow.\n\nHowever, there is a noticeable dip in topic coherence when Speaker A introduces and repeatedly brings up their corgi's memory (at [01:06 - 01:15] and [01:18 - 01:27]). This is a significant deviation from the established topic of cheese making or cow ownership. Speaker B adeptly attempts to re-rail the conversation, first by explicitly asking about cow chores (at [01:14 - 01:18]) and then by humorously linking the corgi to the cow topic (at [01:27 - 01:33]), which eventually brings Speaker A back on track. While Speaker A's tangents briefly detract from the coherence, Speaker B's strong recovery prevents it from becoming a \"significant issue\" for the entire dialogue's relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; responses are generally immediate or follow with only a 1-second delay, which is natural. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  At [00:31 - 00:36], Speaker A begins speaking 2 seconds before Speaker B finishes their previous turn. This is a natural interruption, likely due to surprise or a desire for clarification, and does not hinder understanding.\n2.  At [01:14 - 01:18], Speaker B begins speaking 1 second before Speaker A finishes their previous turn. This also feels natural, as B is attempting to interject and steer the conversation back to a previous point.\nThese overlaps are \"brief\" and enhance the natural conversational flow rather than disrupting it, aligning with the acceptable criteria. There are no extended overlaps where both speakers continue talking over each other for a prolonged period, nor are there any long silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--144898",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm so excited for this party! I haven't seen some of these people in forever.\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: I know, me too! I can't believe it's been so long. It feels like just yesterday we were all hanging out at our\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker A: I was just thinking the same thing! Do you think everyone will recognize each other after all this time?\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker B: Yeah, I know. Time really flies when you're having fun, huh?\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker A: Tell me about it. So, what are you looking forward to the most tonight?\n[00:25 - 00:34] Speaker B: Just catching up with old friends and having a good time. I feel like we've all grown up so much since the last time we saw each other and it'll be interesting to see how everyone has changed, both\n[00:33 - 00:41] Speaker A: Oh, absolutely! And I wonder if anyone's bringing their kids this time. It could be fun to see the next generation running around.\n[00:41 - 00:43] Speaker B: That's true. I'm sure it'll be a night to remember.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate high relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A and B actively engage with each other's statements, building upon previous points and maintaining a clear topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial response (\"I know, me too! I can't believe it's been so long.\") directly mirrors Speaker A's excitement and elaborates on the 'haven't seen in forever' theme.\n- Speaker A's follow-up (\"I was just thinking the same thing! Do you think everyone will recognize each other?\") directly connects to Speaker B's unfinished thought about 'just yesterday' and the passage of time.\n- Speaker B's \"Time really flies when you're having fun, huh?\" acknowledges the shared sentiment of time passing, even if it doesn't directly answer A's recognition question, it's a natural conversational interjection.\n- Speaker A then naturally shifts to 'what are you looking forward to?' which is a logical progression for party talk.\n- Speaker B's detailed answer about 'catching up' and 'seeing how everyone has changed' directly addresses A's question and ties back to the earlier theme of passage of time.\n- Speaker A's introduction of 'kids' and 'next generation' is a coherent extension of the 'seeing how everyone has changed' theme, demonstrating logical thought progression.\n- Speaker B's concluding remark is a relevant and positive wrap-up.\nThere are no irrelevant turns, abrupt topic changes without natural transitions, or logical inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n- There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The conversation flows smoothly and continuously.\n- There are two brief overlaps identified:\n    - [00:10 - 00:11] (1 second overlap)\n    - [00:33 - 00:34] (1 second overlap)\nThese are very short and common in natural, enthusiastic conversation. They are not extended overlaps that would hinder understanding or disrupt the flow. Instead, they indicate active listening and engagement, as speakers are anticipating or agreeing with each other. For example, Speaker A's \"I was just thinking the same thing!\" coming in at the tail end of B's sentence indicates strong agreement and connection, rather than an interruption. Similarly, Speaker A's \"Oh, absolutely!\" coming in as B trails off shows immediate agreement. These brief overlaps contribute to the naturalness and rhythm of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--87661",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Thanks for the offer, but I'm trying to watch my calorie intake so I'll just have a small piece, maybe\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Oh, come on! Just have one piece! It's not going to kill you!\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: I know, but I really don't want to overindulge because I've\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker B: What if we make a deal? We'll each have one piece of cake and then go for a walk around the block. That way you can indulge a little bit and still get some exercise.\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker A: That sounds like a good compromise. Thanks for understanding.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Speaker A clearly states their preference and reason (calorie intake). Speaker B's initial response directly addresses this by trying to persuade. Speaker A then reiterates their concern. Speaker B then proposes a compromise that intelligently integrates Speaker A's desire to avoid overindulgence with the act of having cake (by adding exercise), showing good understanding and problem-solving. Speaker A's final acceptance confirms the logical flow and topic coherence. All responses build on previous statements and move the conversation forward effectively towards a resolution.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits natural conversational fluency with minor, acceptable overlaps and no long pauses.\n- [00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. The overlap is brief (1 second, 0:04-0:05), which is common in dynamic conversations and does not disrupt understanding.\n- [00:10 - 00:18] Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is mid-sentence (\"I've\"). This overlap (1 second, 0:10-0:11) is an interruption, but it's brief and Speaker B immediately presents a solution, which can be a natural conversational dynamic in a negotiation or a proactive attempt to resolve a conflict. It's not an \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" overlap that makes the conversation difficult to follow.\n- There is a 1-second pause between [00:18] and [00:19], which is very short and natural, allowing Speaker A to process the offer before responding.\nOverall, the pauses are minimal and the overlaps are short and do not significantly hinder the flow or intelligibility of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--39924",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:09] Speaker A: I've been thinking a lot about the future lately, and I want to be prepared for whatever might happen. I think it would be a good idea to start learning self-defense.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: Why do you want to learn self-defense?\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: Well, you never know when you might need it. It's always better to be safe than\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but are you thinking about any particular situation that made you feel this way?\n[00:21 - 00:33] Speaker A: Not really a specific situation, just a general sense of wanting to be prepared. But are you sure you're up for the challenge? It takes a lot of dedication and discipline to master self-defense\n[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker B: Absolutely, I know it won't be easy, but I'm ready to commit. Let's do this together!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, and the conversation maintains topic coherence throughout.\n\n*   Speaker A introduces the topic of self-defense and preparedness.\n*   Speaker B's question \"Why do you want to learn self-defense?\" is a direct and relevant follow-up.\n*   Speaker A's explanation (\"better to be safe\") is a logical continuation.\n*   Speaker B's interruption to ask for more specific reasoning (\"any particular situation\") is also relevant, seeking deeper context.\n*   Speaker A's response, clarifying it's a \"general sense,\" is relevant. The subsequent pivot to ask Speaker B if *they* are \"up for the challenge\" shifts the dynamic from A's individual interest to a potential shared endeavor, which, while a shift, is still highly coherent with the main topic of learning self-defense. This anticipates a collaborative future action.\n*   Speaker B's concluding statement, confirming commitment and suggesting \"Let's do this together!\", validates Speaker A's pivot and brings the conversation to a collaborative close.\n\nThe dialogue flows naturally and logically, with responses consistently building on the preceding turns and maintaining focus on the core subject.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good.\n*   There is a 1-second pause between [00:11] and [00:12], which is a small, acceptable pause.\n*   At [00:16], Speaker B explicitly says \"Sorry to jump in,\" indicating a conscious but brief overlap or interruption. This is a natural conversational cue and not a prolonged or disruptive overlap. Speaker A's sentence \"It's always better to be safe than\" is cut off, suggesting B initiated their turn before A completed their thought, which is common in fluid conversation.\n*   At [00:32], Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence (Speaker A's turn ends at [00:33]). This is a 1-second overlap. This brief overlap is common in natural conversation, where speakers anticipate the end of a turn and chime in.\n\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would impede the flow of communication. The turn-taking is efficient, contributing to a natural and fluent conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--78639",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Hey, I'm Lilliana. I saw you across the room and thought you were really cute, so I wanted to come over and say hi.\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: Hey! I'm Sarah. Thanks for coming over, it's nice to meet someone\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I just have to ask—do you come to these events often?\n[00:16 - 00:27] Speaker B: Not really, this is actually my first time here. My friend invited me. She said there would be a lot of people here and that it would be a good opportunity to socialize. What about you? Why did you come out tonight?\n[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker A: Oh, I don't know. I guess just to have some fun and meet new people. I'm glad I ran into someone who\n[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker B: Oh, speaking of meeting new people, have you met anyone interesting so far?\n[00:38 - 00:41] Speaker A: Not yet, but I'm definitely glad I met you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent logical consistency and topic coherence. Each speaker's turn is a relevant and appropriate response to the previous statement or question, naturally progressing the conversation.\n\n*   **Initial greeting:** Speaker A's opening and compliment are relevant to initiating a social interaction. Speaker B's response, introducing herself and acknowledging the compliment, is perfectly relevant.\n*   **Question about attendance:** Speaker A's follow-up question (\"Do you come to these events often?\") is a natural way to find common ground. Speaker B's detailed answer explaining her first time and then reciprocating the question (\"What about you? Why did you come out tonight?\") maintains relevance and engagement.\n*   **Discussion about meeting people:** Speaker A's response about having fun and meeting new people is directly relevant to Speaker B's question. Speaker B's subsequent interruption and question (\"Oh, speaking of meeting new people, have you met anyone interesting so far?\") although an overlap, is logically consistent, picking up on Speaker A's \"meet new people\" phrase and steering the conversation further into that topic.\n*   **Final exchange:** Speaker A's final response (\"Not yet, but I'm definitely glad I met you\") directly answers the question and reinforces the initial positive sentiment towards Speaker B, maintaining high relevance.\n\nThere are no instances of the dialogue veering off-topic or presenting illogical jumps. The conversational thread is clear and easy to follow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction generally demonstrates good fluency, but there are two instances of extended overlaps that slightly detract from perfect naturalness.\n\n*   **[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker A:** \"Sorry to jump in, but I just have to ask—do you come to these events often?\" This is an *acknowledged* overlap, where Speaker A explicitly states \"Sorry to jump in.\" This suggests Speaker A interrupted Speaker B's previous turn. While Speaker B's turn at [00:08 - 00:11] ends abruptly \"it's nice to meet someone,\" Speaker A's quick interjection implies B was still speaking or about to continue. This is a common conversational dynamic, and Speaker A's apology mitigates it.\n*   **[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker B:** \"Oh, speaking of meeting new people, have you met anyone interesting so far?\" This is a clear extended overlap with Speaker A's turn [00:28 - 00:34]. Speaker B cuts into Speaker A's sentence (\"I'm glad I ran into someone who\"). This is a more significant interruption as it stops Speaker A mid-thought, though it's still related to the topic.\n\nThere are no noticeable long pauses between speaker turns. The turns generally flow quickly from one to the next, indicating a lively conversation. The overlaps, while present, don't completely break the flow but are noticeable as interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--500",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I can't wait to have dinner tonight! What are you making?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: I'm making pasta with pesto sauce. Do you want to add some\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Oh my gosh, that sounds delicious! Is it a family recipe or something you came up with yourself?\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker B: It's actually a family recipe. I'd love to show you how to make it!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates the conversation by asking about dinner, and Speaker B directly answers, providing specific details about the dish. Speaker A then offers a positive reaction and asks a relevant follow-up question about the recipe's origin. Speaker B accurately responds to this question and offers a logical next step (teaching the recipe). The topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on the dinner and the recipe's details. Each turn builds logically upon the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural flow of conversation. There is a brief overlap between Speaker B's turn (ending 0:06) and Speaker A's turn (starting 0:05). This 1-second overlap ([0:05 - 0:06]) is considered brief and acceptable, especially given Speaker A's enthusiastic reaction (\"Oh my gosh, that sounds delicious!\"), which often leads to slight anticipatory overlaps in natural speech. Speaker B's sentence being cut off (\"Do you want to add some\") also suggests a natural interruption, rather than a problematic extended overlap. Overall, the conversation feels natural and dynamic, without any detrimental fluency issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--55929",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Daddy. I wrote a new book.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: That's great, sweetheart! What's it about?\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: It's the story of a girl who discovers she has a gift for writing and decides to share her stories with the world,\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker B: Hold on, that sounds really inspiring! But how does she first realize she has this gift? Was there a specific moment?\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker A: Yes, there was a moment when she wrote a poem for a school project, and everyone loved it. That's when she knew she had something special.\n[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker B: Wow! That sounds like an amazing story. I can't wait to read it.\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker A: I know you'll like it, Daddy. Thanks for always being my biggest fan.\n[00:33 - 00:35] Speaker B: Of course, sweetheart. I'm always here for you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly follows and builds upon the previous one.\n*   Speaker A introduces the topic of a new book.\n*   Speaker B responds with enthusiasm and a relevant follow-up question (\"What's it about?\").\n*   Speaker A provides a summary, which then prompts Speaker B to ask a more specific, detail-oriented question about the plot (\"But how does she first realize she has this gift? Was there a specific moment?\"). This shows active listening and engagement, seeking clarification and more depth.\n*   Speaker A provides a direct and coherent answer to this specific question.\n*   Speaker B expresses continued enthusiasm and anticipation, which is a natural progression.\n*   Speaker A expresses gratitude, a relevant emotional response to B's support.\n*   Speaker B offers reassurance, completing the affectionate exchange.\nThe conversation maintains a clear topic (the book) throughout, with each response contributing meaningfully to the narrative and interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent fluency.\n*   **Pauses:** All pauses between turns are brief (typically 1 second), which are natural and do not disrupt the flow of conversation. They allow for natural processing and turn-taking without feeling awkward or prolonged.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap identified at [00:09 - 00:10]. Speaker B begins their turn at 0:09 while Speaker A finishes at 0:10. This is a 1-second overlap. According to the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This 1-second overlap is very brief, non-disruptive, and actually contributes to the naturalness and eagerness of Speaker B's response (\"Hold on, that sounds really inspiring!\"). It does not impede comprehension for either speaker. There are no extended or harmful overlaps.\nOverall, the pacing feels very natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--621",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What's your favorite stock?\n[00:01 - 00:06] Speaker B: I really like these stocks for the cleantech industry. They're in renewable energy and have\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but could you explain a bit more about why you prefer cleantech stocks over others?\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm doing a project for work with a company that makes renewable energy sources.\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker A: That sounds really interesting! I'd like to learn more about it. Do you have any books or articles you could recommend that\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker B: Actually, I was going to ask if you have any specific areas of interest within cleantech, so I can tailor the recommendations better.\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker A: Sure! But I'd still appreciate any general books or articles you could send me.\n[00:36 - 00:37] Speaker B: I'll PM you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining a consistent topic thread from favorite stocks to cleantech, renewable energy, and finally, recommendations for learning more. Speaker B's initial response directly answers Speaker A's question. Speaker A's follow-up questions build on Speaker B's answers, and Speaker B's suggestion to tailor recommendations is a logical and helpful response to Speaker A's request for resources. There are no irrelevant tangents or illogical shifts in conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two brief overlaps detected:\n1.  **[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A overlapping [00:01 - 00:06] Speaker B:** Speaker A begins speaking at 00:05 while Speaker B finishes at 00:06, resulting in a 1-second overlap. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which manages the interruption politely and naturally.\n2.  **[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker B overlapping [00:17 - 00:24] Speaker A:** Speaker B begins at 00:23 while Speaker A finishes at 00:24, also resulting in a 1-second overlap. This is a common occurrence in natural conversation where a speaker anticipates the end of a turn or wants to interject with a relevant thought or question, and it's brief enough not to be disruptive.\n\nAll pauses between turns (e.g., 1-second pauses at [00:11-00:12], [00:16-00:17], [00:30-00:31], [00:35-00:36]) are very short and natural, indicating smooth turn-taking without any \"prolonged\" silences. The brief overlaps and short pauses contribute to a natural and dynamic conversational flow, falling within the acceptable range as per the criteria.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--615",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi! How have you been doing?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: I'm doing well! I'm thinking of renovating my house.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: How exciting! Are you planning on doing all of the work yourself?\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B: No, I was hoping to hire some help.\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker A: If you have any questions, I'd be happy to help!\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker B: Do you have any landscaping tips for me?\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker A: Well, if you want to create a lush, beautiful lawn, the key is to plant grass seeds at the\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I was actually wondering if you have any recommendations for good contractors?\n[00:28 - 00:37] Speaker A: Oh, I can definitely help with that! I know a few reliable contractors. However, I haven't finished telling you about the grass seeds and the\n[00:36 - 00:41] Speaker B: Right, but I also wanted to ask if there are specific types of grass that grow better in certain climates?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance and topic coherence.\n1.  **Topic Drifting and Incoherence by Speaker B:** Speaker B initiates a question about landscaping tips (`00:16 - 00:18`), then abruptly interrupts Speaker A (`00:23 - 00:28`) to ask about contractors. While Speaker B clarifies the initial intent (\"Sorry to interrupt, but I was actually wondering if you have any recommendations for good contractors?\"), this sudden shift and interruption indicate a lack of clear communication and coherent questioning from Speaker B.\n2.  **Lack of Follow-Through and Persistence in Previous Topic by Speaker A:** After Speaker B's clear shift to contractors, Speaker A acknowledges this but then tries to revert to the previous topic about grass seeds (`00:28 - 00:37`). This makes the conversation feel disjointed, as Speaker A is not fully addressing Speaker B's current, explicit need.\n3.  **Further Incoherence by Speaker B:** Speaker B then *again* interrupts Speaker A (`00:36 - 00:41`) and brings up grass types, essentially returning to a sub-topic of landscaping after having already shifted to contractors. This demonstrates a severe lack of logical consistency and topic coherence on Speaker B's part, making the conversation difficult to follow and fulfill.\n\nOverall, the conversation lacks a clear, consistent flow due to abrupt topic changes and attempts to revert to old topics, making it difficult for the speakers to address each other's needs effectively.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits some issues in fluency, primarily stemming from Speaker B's turn-taking behavior.\n1.  **Overlapping Turns (Interruptions):** There are two instances of overlapping turns initiated by Speaker B:\n    *   `[00:23 - 00:24]` Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A. The overlap duration is brief (1 second).\n    *   `[00:36 - 00:37]` Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A again. The overlap duration is also brief (1 second).\n    While the prompt states \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" it also specifies that \"overlapping turns are harmful.\" Speaker B's actions are direct interruptions that cut off Speaker A's turn, rather than merely brief, accidental simultaneous speech. These repeated, intentional interruptions, even if brief in duration, disrupt the natural flow and rhythm of the conversation, making it less fluent and appropriate.\n2.  **Absence of Long Pauses:** There are no instances of long pauses between speaker turns, which is a positive aspect for fluency.\n\nDespite the brevity of the overlaps, the *pattern* of Speaker B repeatedly initiating \"overlapping turns\" (interruptions) to abruptly change or reintroduce topics harms the interactional fluency by disrupting turn-taking and making the conversation feel less natural and cooperative.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--354",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I hate computer games.\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Why? They are a great\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker A: Sorry, I just wanted to say they are fine. But why do you hate them so much?\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: Because they are too violent. Some of them are even disgusting.\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker A: Indeed there are bad games. But many of them are good.\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker B: If boys grow up with computer games, they will surely develop poor\n[00:18 - 00:26] Speaker A: Wait, do you really think all games have that kind of impact? What about educational games that teach problem-solving or creativity?\n[00:26 - 00:35] Speaker B: I was going to say they will surely become bad if exposed to violent games, but I guess educational ones could be different. Do you have examples of such games?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Logical Consistency & Topic Coherence:**\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues with logical consistency and topic coherence, primarily initiated by Speaker A's first subsequent turn.\n1.  **Speaker A's Contradiction:** Speaker A begins by stating, \"I hate computer games.\" However, in their very next turn, while Speaker B is still speaking, Speaker A interjects with, \"Sorry, I just wanted to say they are fine.\" This creates a direct and immediate contradiction of Speaker A's own stated opinion, making their initial statement logically inconsistent with their subsequent clarification. It's unclear what Speaker A's actual stance is.\n2.  **Misinterpretation/Misdirection by Speaker A:** Following the self-correction, Speaker A asks Speaker B, \"But why do you hate them so much?\" This question is problematic because Speaker B was in the process of defending computer games (\"Why? They are a great...\"), not expressing hatred for them. Speaker A completely misinterprets Speaker B's stance and forces a new premise onto the conversation, disrupting the logical flow and coherence of the topic.\n3.  **Later Relevance:** While subsequent turns (Speaker B explaining their dislike for violent games, Speaker A acknowledging and questioning generalisations, Speaker B clarifying and conceding) are relevant to the established (albeit awkwardly established) topic, the initial interaction by Speaker A severely damages the overall logical consistency and coherence of the dialogue from the outset.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Extended Overlaps & Long Pauses:**\nThe dialogue demonstrates significant issues with interactional fluency due to prominent and extended overlaps where speakers interrupt each other. There are no noticeable long pauses.\n1.  **First Extended Overlap (0:02 - 0:07):** Speaker A begins speaking at 0:02, interrupting Speaker B who is still mid-sentence and continues until 0:03. This is not a brief, natural overlap; Speaker A speaks for a significant duration (5 seconds) over Speaker B's final word, cutting off Speaker B's thought entirely. This is disruptive and unnatural.\n2.  **Second Extended Overlap (0:18 - 0:26):** Similarly, Speaker A starts speaking at 0:18, interrupting Speaker B who is still mid-sentence and continues until 0:19. Again, this is an extended interruption where Speaker A speaks for a substantial period (8 seconds) over Speaker B's incomplete thought. This also disrupts the natural flow of conversation.\nThese repeated instances of extended, cutting-off overlaps significantly detract from the interactional fluency, making the dialogue feel rushed, impolite, and unnatural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--93788",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I don't want to do anything that would hurt myself or anyone else. I just want to make sure that I'm doing what's best for everyone and not\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Why do you feel like you need to do this? Is there something specific that's making you doubt yourself?\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A: I don't know. I just feel like I need to be sure that I'm making the right decisions.\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker B: What are you worried about specifically?\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker A: I'm just worried that I might make a mistake and hurt someone.\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker B: You're not going to hurt anyone, Malinda. You're a good person.\n[00:26 - 00:28] Speaker A: I know, but I just want to be sure.\n[00:29 - 00:33] Speaker B: There's no need to worry so much. Just relax and go with your gut.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker A consistently expresses a core anxiety about making wrong decisions and potentially hurting others. Speaker B's responses are consistently supportive, empathetic, and aimed at understanding and reassuring Speaker A.\n\n*   Speaker A's initial statement (0:00-0:07) sets the theme of caution and wanting to do \"what's best.\"\n*   Speaker B's first question (0:07-0:11) directly probes the reason for Speaker A's feelings, showing logical follow-up.\n*   Speaker A's response (0:12-0:17) reiterates the need for certainty in decision-making, directly answering B.\n*   Speaker B's follow-up question (0:17-0:19) narrows down the concern, prompting Speaker A for specifics.\n*   Speaker A's response (0:18-0:21) provides the specific worry (\"make a mistake and hurt someone\"), maintaining topic coherence.\n*   Speaker B's reassurance (0:22-0:25) directly addresses this specific fear, using Speaker A's name for a personal touch.\n*   Speaker A's next turn (0:26-0:28) acknowledges the reassurance but reiterates the underlying desire for certainty, which is a consistent thread.\n*   Speaker B's final advice (0:29-0:33) offers a concluding supportive statement, fitting the conversation's trajectory.\n\nThe conversation flows logically from a general statement of concern to a specific worry, followed by reassurance and continued support, maintaining strong logical consistency and topic coherence throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates good fluency. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses.\n\n*   The pauses between turns are consistently brief, typically around 1 second (e.g., 0:11-0:12, 0:21-0:22, 0:25-0:26, 0:28-0:29). These are natural and do not hinder the flow of conversation.\n*   There is one brief overlap noted:\n    *   At [0:18 - 0:21] Speaker A starts speaking at 0:18 while Speaker B finishes their turn at 0:19. This is a 1-second overlap. This is a very brief and common occurrence in natural conversation, indicating active listening and turn-taking without being disruptive or \"prolonged.\"\n\nOverall, the timing of turns and the absence of disruptive pauses or extended overlaps contribute to a natural and fluent interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--414",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Stand back from the door, please. Let the passengers off. You can't get on until the other passengers get off the\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: How much is the fare, please?\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: One dollar. Drop it in the box. Move to the rear of the bus. There are plenty of seats in the rear.\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: Wait. I want to ask you if this bus goes down Fifth Avenue as far as Greenwich Village.\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker A: That's right. Move along, please. There are more people waiting to get on. Move to the rear.\n[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker B: I thought this bus went down Park Avenue.\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker A: No, that's the number 1 that goes down Park Avenue. This is the number 2 bus, which\n[00:32 - 00:35] Speaker B: But I thought this was the right bus to go to Washington Square Park.\n[00:35 - 00:45] Speaker A: It is. Get in, please. You're holding everyone up. You can't miss Washington Square Park. Oh, and you asked earlier if this bus goes down Fifth Avenue—it does.\n[00:46 - 00:47] Speaker B: Would you tell me when we get there?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A consistently addresses Speaker B's questions and provides relevant instructions (fare, moving to the rear, bus route clarification). Speaker B's questions are all pertinent to boarding the correct bus and reaching their destination (fare, route to Greenwich Village/Fifth Avenue, confirmation for Washington Square Park). There are no irrelevant turns, no contradictions, and the conversation flows logically from boarding instructions to route clarification, and finally to destination confirmation. Speaker A even proactively clarifies an earlier point about Fifth Avenue, showing good recall and comprehensive communication.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns; the conversation moves at a natural and efficient pace, which is particularly appropriate given Speaker A's role as a bus driver managing a queue (\"You're holding everyone up. There are more people waiting to get on.\"). There are two brief overlaps identified:\n1.  **[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: How much is the fare, please?** overlapping slightly with **[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: ...passengers get off the**. This is a very short overlap (around 1 second) and common in natural conversation where one speaker interjects with a question.\n2.  **[00:32 - 00:35] Speaker B: But I thought this was the right bus to go to Washington Square Park.** overlapping slightly with **[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker A: ...This is the number 2 bus, which**. Again, this is a brief overlap (around 1 second) where Speaker B jumps in with a follow-up clarification before Speaker A completes their sentence.\nNeither of these overlaps are extended or disruptive; they reflect natural conversational dynamics rather than poor fluency. Overall, the flow is smooth and effective.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--35091",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, you! Give me back my watch!\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: What are you talking about? I don't have your wallet, and\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: Don't play dumb with me! I saw you take it out of my pocket yesterday, and I want it back now. Give it to me!\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker B: Look, I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't take your watch. Now leave me alone before I have to get someone\n[00:17 - 00:26] Speaker A: You're going to call the cops? Ha! I'd like to see you try. I know you have my watch, and I'm not leaving until you give it back to me.\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker B: Fine. Take your stupid watch. But I didn't steal it from you, so don't come crying to me when it doesn't work\n[00:31 - 00:33] Speaker A: It won't break. It's a Rolex.\n[00:33 - 00:36] Speaker B: Whatever. Just stay away from me, okay?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence overall.\n- Speaker A consistently demands their \"watch,\" setting a clear topic.\n- Speaker B's initial response \"I don't have your wallet\" at [00:03 - 00:05] introduces a minor logical inconsistency by misidentifying the item. However, this is quickly corrected implicitly by Speaker A's follow-up and then explicitly by Speaker B later stating \"I didn't take your watch\" at [00:12 - 00:18]. This initial misstep is brief and doesn't derail the conversation significantly.\n- All subsequent turns are highly relevant to the escalating conflict: Speaker A presses the accusation, Speaker B denies and threatens, Speaker A challenges the threat, and eventually Speaker B concedes while maintaining their innocence.\n- The dialogue remains focused on the watch and the conflict surrounding its possession. Speaker A's final comment about the Rolex's durability directly addresses Speaker B's prior warning about the watch not working, showing excellent responsiveness.\nDespite the initial minor hiccup, the dialogue quickly regains and maintains strong coherence and logical flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe interaction exhibits natural conversational flow with acceptable brief overlaps and short pauses.\n- **Overlaps:**\n    - `[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B` and `[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A`: A 0-second overlap, Speaker A starting exactly as Speaker B finishes. This is a very brief transition, typical in natural speech.\n    - `[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker B` and `[00:17 - 00:26] Speaker A`: A 1-second overlap. Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing their sentence. This is a brief overlap, common in arguments or emotionally charged conversations, and does not appear prolonged or disruptive.\n    - `[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker B` and `[00:31 - 00:33] Speaker A`: A 1-second overlap. Similar to the previous instance, Speaker A interjects briefly before Speaker B fully finishes. This also contributes to the natural, urgent tone of the conversation.\nThese overlaps are brief (1 second or less) and fit the context of an escalating argument, enhancing rather than hindering the interactional fluency.\n- **Pauses:**\n    - Pauses between turns are consistently short (e.g., 1 second between [00:26] and [00:27], and between [00:32] and [00:33]). These are well within acceptable limits and maintain a dynamic, natural pace for the dialogue.\nThere are no prolonged pauses or extended overlaps that would indicate a breakdown in interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--125144",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm really interested in your proposal, Braydon. I want to make sure I understand it before we discuss it further.\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: Of course. What questions do you have?\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: Well, first of all, what exactly are you proposing?\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: I'm proposing that we start a new company together. A joint venture, if you are open\n[00:15 - 00:25] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but when you say \"joint venture,\" are you thinking of a 50-50 partnership, or do you have a different structure in mind?\n[00:25 - 00:39] Speaker B: I was thinking 50-50, so we both have equal stakes and decision-making power. Now, as I was saying, this joint venture would be a full-service advertising agency. We would handle everything from market research to media buying to creative strategy, ensuring\n[00:39 - 00:47] Speaker A: Media buying? That's a significant commitment. Do you think we have the right connections and resources to secure the best deals in that area?\n[00:48 - 00:58] Speaker B: Yes, I believe we do. I have some contacts from my previous work that could really help us out. And for the creative design part, I was thinking we could bring on a top-notch designer to lead that.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses the preceding statement or builds upon the ongoing topic.\n\n*   Speaker A initiates the conversation by expressing interest and a need for understanding, which naturally prompts Speaker B to ask for questions.\n*   Speaker A's initial question about the proposal's nature is met by Speaker B's clear articulation of a \"joint venture.\"\n*   Speaker A's interruption (acknowledged with \"Sorry to jump in\") to clarify \"joint venture\" is highly relevant, demonstrating an immediate need to understand a core component of the proposal. This isn't an arbitrary digression but a focused clarification.\n*   Speaker B's response to the 50-50 question is direct and then smoothly transitions back to elaborating on the type of joint venture, showing good topic maintenance.\n*   Speaker A's subsequent question about \"media buying\" resources is a relevant follow-up to the detailed explanation of the advertising agency services.\n*   Speaker B's final response addresses the resource question and then proactively adds information about another key area (creative design), maintaining the logical flow of discussing the venture's components.\n\nThere are no instances of irrelevant comments, abrupt topic shifts without reason, or illogical responses. The conversation progresses coherently and purposefully.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good. There are no long pauses that disrupt the flow of conversation.\n\nRegarding overlaps:\n*   At [00:15 - 00:25], Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence (B speaks until 00:16). This is a brief overlap (approximately 1 second). Crucially, Speaker A acknowledges this by saying \"Sorry to jump in,\" which indicates self-awareness and a desire to clarify immediately, rather than a disruptive takeover. This type of brief, functional overlap, especially when acknowledged, is common and natural in dynamic conversations and does not indicate poor fluency.\n*   At [00:39 - 00:47], Speaker A starts speaking precisely at 00:39, while Speaker B also finishes at 00:39. This indicates either immediate turn-taking or a very minimal overlap (less than a second, possibly an eager interjection at the tail end of B's thought). This is a \"brief overlap\" as per the criteria and does not appear harmful or disruptive.\n\nBoth instances of overlap are brief and serve a communicative purpose (clarification, eager engagement). They do not constitute \"prolonged overlapping turns\" that would hinder understanding or conversation flow. The overall pacing feels natural and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--138",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I wonder if you could do me a favor.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'd be happy to help you. Name it.\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: My printer is broken. Can you print up a copy for me? It's\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but do you need it urgently? I could print it right away if it's time-sensitive.\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker A: Yes, I do need it soon. Can you print up a copy for me?\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker B: Sure, no problem. Do you want me to edit it for you?\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker A: Please, you write much better than I do.\n[00:24 - 00:30] Speaker B: Oh, it's nothing. By the way, did you mention what exactly you need printed? Is it a report or something else?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance.\n- **Logical Consistency:** Each turn builds logically on the previous one. Speaker B's initial offer to help, Speaker A's request, Speaker B's clarifying question about urgency, Speaker A's confirmation, Speaker B's offer to edit, Speaker A's acceptance, and Speaker B's final question about the document type all follow a clear and sensible progression.\n- **Topic Coherence:** The central topic of printing a document due to a broken printer, and then subsequently editing it, is maintained throughout the conversation. Speaker B's questions (\"do you need it urgently?\", \"Do you want me to edit it?\", \"what exactly you need printed?\") are all highly relevant to fulfilling the original request or its expanded scope.\n- There are no instances where a speaker introduces an irrelevant topic or gives a non-sequitur response.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses that do occur (e.g., 1 second between 00:17 and 00:18, and between 00:20 and 00:21) are brief and natural, allowing for processing and turn-taking without disrupting the flow.\n- There is one instance of an overlap: Speaker B begins speaking at 00:08 while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence (finishing at 00:09). However, this overlap is brief (approximately 1 second) and is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Sorry to jump in\"). This type of brief, acknowledged interruption for clarification or urgency is a common and natural feature of fluent conversation, rather than a harmful disruption. It demonstrates active listening and engagement.\n- The turns are well-paced and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--413",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I don't get it. The gods are so powerful and all the humans are so weak. What's the point of the gods?\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: I think it's more of a game of chance.\n[00:10 - 00:11] Speaker A: A game of chance?\n[00:12 - 00:24] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean the gods get to pick whoever they want to be a god. That's what they want to do. And the gods are supposed to make people happy. But if the gods are just making the humans feel good, they might be not feeling good themselves, leading\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker A: Wait, are you saying that the gods themselves might be unhappy even though they're making humans happy?\n[00:29 - 00:43] Speaker B: Exactly! That's why everyone isn't worshipping the gods. That's why people rebel and overthrow the gods. I mean - most of the time it's the other way around - the humans overthrow the gods - but the gods are the ones who put the humans into that situation in the first place.\n[00:43 - 00:50] Speaker A: That makes sense. The gods make people happy, but there's nothing really stopping them from turning into jerks.\n[00:51 - 00:58] Speaker B: Exactly! And that's why people get fed up and rebel. It really makes me think about our own world. Do you think the same thing might happen to us if our\n[00:57 - 01:01] Speaker A: Are you implying that our leaders could face a similar rebellion?\n[01:01 - 01:03] Speaker B: It's actually happening right now.\n[01:03 - 01:05] Speaker A: What do you mean?\n[01:05 - 01:13] Speaker B: I mean that the people who are in power are the ones who chose to be in power. And they're treating everyone else like crap. But I guess that's just the human condition, right?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance throughout. Speaker B introduces the concept of gods playing a \"game of chance,\" which Speaker A immediately picks up on and seeks clarification. Speaker B elaborates, introducing the novel idea that gods themselves might be unhappy, which Speaker A then effectively paraphrases and confirms. The discussion then seamlessly transitions from mythological gods to a real-world analogy about leaders and rebellion, initiated by Speaker B and accurately interpreted by Speaker A. Each turn builds logically on the previous one, showing clear understanding, active listening, and coherent progression of thought. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or illogical jumps in conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the conversation flows naturally and promptly. While there are two brief instances of overlap (Speaker A at 0:23 and 0:57), these are very short (approximately 1 second each) and seem to be instances of Speaker A interjecting to confirm or seek clarification on Speaker B's ongoing point, which is a common and natural characteristic of engaged conversation rather than a disruptive prolonged overlap. These brief overlaps do not impede the flow or understanding of the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--88347",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi Lauran! It's been so long! How are you?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Hi Michaelangelo. I'm doing well, thanks for asking. How about you? How\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: I've been meaning to reach out to you for a while now, but I wasn't sure if you wanted to talk to me after what happened.\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker B: Yeah, I was pretty upset when it happened. But I've had some time to think about it and I'm willing to forgive and forget if we can\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker A: I just want to say, I'm really sorry for what happened. It was never my intention to hurt you. Can we start over?\n[00:26 - 00:28] Speaker B: Yes, let's start over.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates a conversation with a clear underlying purpose, which Speaker B immediately picks up on by referencing \"what happened.\" The subsequent turns directly address the past incident, with Speaker B expressing their upset but willingness to forgive, and Speaker A offering a sincere apology and a desire to \"start over.\" Speaker B's final response confirms the reconciliation. Each turn builds logically on the previous one, maintaining a clear topic coherence focused on reconciliation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are no noticeable long pauses between turns that would disrupt the flow. There is a brief overlap between [00:19 - 00:20] where Speaker A begins their turn (\"I just want to say...\") while Speaker B is finishing their sentence (\"...if we can\"). This is a 1-second overlap. According to the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" In this emotional context (apology and reconciliation), a slight overlap might even indicate eagerness or urgency, contributing to naturalness rather than being harmful. It does not qualify as a \"prolonged\" or disruptive overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--416",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hi, my name's Karl. My wife and I are moving in next door.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Hello, Karl. I'm Chuck Jones. We're going to be neighbors.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: I'm happy to meet you. It seems everyone in town is so friendly.\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B: This is a small town, and we like to be neighborly. We know everyone who lives around and we\n[00:16 - 00:25] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but I was actually wondering if there are any community events or gatherings that we should know about? We'd love to get involved.\n[00:25 - 00:37] Speaker B: Oh, absolutely, we have a few events throughout the year. But as I was saying, we know everyone who lives around here, so you'll find it easy to fit in. By the way, you mentioned you're from Chicago. What made you decide to move all the way to Minnesota?\n[00:38 - 00:46] Speaker A: Well, I'm from Chicago, and we were looking for a quieter place to raise our kids. The hustle and bustle of the city was getting to be a bit much.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly relates to or builds upon the previous one, maintaining a coherent conversation flow.\n- Speaker B's initial response to Speaker A's introduction is appropriate and welcoming.\n- Speaker A's comment about the town's friendliness is logically followed by Speaker B's explanation of their neighborly culture.\n- Speaker A's \"cutting in\" to ask about community events, while an interruption, is highly relevant for a new resident looking to get involved.\n- Speaker B handles this interruption well, acknowledging the new topic (\"Oh, absolutely, we have a few events...\") before smoothly transitioning back to their previous point (\"But as I was saying...\") and then introducing a new, relevant question about Speaker A's move from Chicago (a detail mentioned in the very first turn). This shows excellent recall and topic management.\n- Speaker A's final response directly and clearly answers Speaker B's question.\nOverall, the topics progress naturally, and responses are always on point, even with a brief topic shift and return.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency with only one notable overlap.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural conversational rhythm.\n- The only overlap occurs from [00:16 - 00:17], where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. However, Speaker A immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to cut in\"), which makes this a natural, brief, and acknowledged interruption rather than a disruptive or prolonged overlap. Such brief, acknowledged overlaps are common in natural conversation and do not significantly harm fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--400",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Good morning, may I speak with Professor Clark, please?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: You are speaking with Professor Clark.\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: Professor, I am Kalina from your morning literature class.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: Yes, how can I help you with\n[00:10 - 00:19] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, Professor, but I wanted to let you know right away that I ran my car into a tree yesterday and need to miss a few days of school.\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B: Oh, my God! I hope you are all right.\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker A: I have a concussion, but I will be OK.\n[00:25 - 00:26] Speaker B: How much school will you miss?\n[00:26 - 00:28] Speaker A: I only need to take this week off.\n[00:29 - 00:38] Speaker B: I appreciate you calling and telling me that you won't be in class. By the way, when you mentioned the accident earlier, you didn't say if anyone else was involved. Was it just you?\n[00:38 - 00:43] Speaker A: Yes, it was just me. Thankfully, no one else was hurt. See you next week!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement.\n- Speaker A's initial query is met with a direct affirmation from Speaker B.\n- Speaker A then provides necessary identification, and Speaker B prompts for the reason for the call.\n- Speaker A's explanation for absence is immediately followed by Speaker B's empathetic concern, which is highly relevant given the news of an accident.\n- The exchange about the injury and duration of absence is direct and practical.\n- Speaker B's shift to inquiring about others involved in the accident, while slightly changing the sub-topic, remains highly relevant to the core issue of the accident and shows continued concern for Speaker A's well-being, which is a natural progression in a caring conversation.\n- Speaker A's final response directly answers the question and provides a natural closing.\nTopic coherence is consistently maintained, revolving around the car accident, its impact on Speaker A, and the implications for their attendance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits very good fluency, with natural turn-taking and appropriate timing.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the dialogue flows smoothly, indicated by the tight timestamp intervals.\n- There is one brief overlap: `[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: Yes, how can I help you with` and `[00:10 - 00:19] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, Professor, but I wanted to let you know right away that I ran my car into a tree yesterday and need to miss a few days of school.` This is a very common and natural occurrence in conversation, where one speaker begins their thought just as the other is finishing theirs, often indicated by an \"interrupt\" apology. This overlap is brief and does not hinder understanding or disrupt the flow; in fact, it enhances the natural feel of the conversation.\nOverall, the interaction feels very natural and fluid.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--116144",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:13] Speaker A: I'm tired of always being the one who has to give in, who has to sacrifice themselves for everyone else. I'm done with it! From now on, I'm going to be more assertive and make sure that my needs are considered just\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker B: Wait, are you saying that you've been feeling this way for a long time? I had no idea it was this bad.\n[00:18 - 00:26] Speaker A: Yes, for a while now. But I'm done with being the doormat, and if that means creating some conflict, then so be it.\n[00:26 - 00:36] Speaker B: I see your point. I guess it's up to you to decide what's best for you. But just be careful that you don't become too aggressive in your pursuit of assertiveness. You don't want to alienate the\n[00:35 - 00:43] Speaker A: Oh, don't worry. I'm not planning on turning into someone I'm not. I just want to make sure I'm not being overlooked anymore.\n[00:44 - 00:48] Speaker B: That's fair. Just remember, it's all about balance. Thanks for sharing this with me.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building upon the shared topic of Speaker A's assertiveness and Speaker B's reactions and advice.\n\n*   Speaker B's initial question (\"Wait, are you saying that you've been feeling this way for a long time?\") directly addresses Speaker A's opening declaration of frustration.\n*   Speaker A's confirmation and re-emphasis (\"Yes, for a while now. But I'm done with being the doormat...\") directly answers B's question and reinforces their stance.\n*   Speaker B's subsequent advice (\"But just be careful that you don't become too aggressive...\") is a relevant cautionary response to A's strong declaration of change.\n*   Speaker A's reassurance (\"Oh, don't worry. I'm not planning on turning into someone I'm not...\") directly addresses B's caution.\n*   Speaker B's final remarks (\"That's fair. Just remember, it's all about balance. Thanks for sharing this with me.\") provide a relevant and empathetic closing, acknowledging A's feelings and the overall theme.\n\nThe conversation maintains strong topic coherence, consistently focusing on Speaker A's personal struggle and intention to change, with Speaker B offering support and perspective. There are no illogical statements or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is very good. There are two instances of brief overlaps and one very short pause, none of which are prolonged or detrimental to the conversation flow.\n\n*   `[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker B:` starts at 00:12 while Speaker A finishes at 00:13, resulting in a 1-second overlap. This is a very brief, natural overlap, often indicating active listening or eagerness to respond in a dynamic conversation.\n*   `[00:35 - 00:43] Speaker A:` starts at 00:35 while Speaker B finishes at 00:36, resulting in another 1-second overlap. Similar to the first, this is brief and natural.\n*   There is a 1-second gap between Speaker A finishing at 00:43 and Speaker B starting at 00:44. This is a negligible pause and contributes to a natural conversational rhythm.\n\nThere are no long pauses that would disrupt the flow, nor are there extended overlapping turns that would make the conversation difficult to follow or feel unnatural. The dialogue feels fluid and spontaneous.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--368",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Do you know that I'm checking out in about 30 minutes?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Just say the word, sir.\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: Excellent! Now, as you know, the day has barely begun, and\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I just want to confirm—are you planning to store your luggage with us after checking out?\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker A: Yes, I am. I want to hit a few more places in the city, but I need a place to put my luggage.\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker B: We do have a storage space for your bags. There's a small charge, plus a deposit.\n[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker A: Leave a deposit? Isn't leaving the luggage enough of a deposit?\n[00:30 - 00:34] Speaker B: Regrettably, no. But simply present your VISA to cover your deposit.\n[00:35 - 00:44] Speaker A: Hmm. I'll have to think about this for a second. By the way, you mentioned something earlier about the day barely beginning—what were you going to say?\n[00:45 - 00:55] Speaker B: Oh, I was just agreeing with you that the dew is still on the grass. There's plenty of time to explore the city. Just don't think too long about the storage, sir. Your checkout is only 30 minutes away.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B's initial response \"Just say the word, sir\" appropriately acknowledges Speaker A's statement about checking out. Speaker B's interruption at [00:08] is relevant as it anticipates a common need for guests checking out (luggage storage), and is immediately followed by a polite \"Sorry to interrupt,\" indicating awareness and maintaining conversational politeness. Speaker A then directly confirms the need. Subsequent turns flow logically, with Speaker B providing information, Speaker A questioning it, and Speaker B clarifying. Speaker A's shift back to an earlier unfinished thought at [00:35] is explicitly managed with \"By the way,\" making it a coherent and natural return to a previous topic rather than an abrupt jump. Speaker B's final response ties up the loose end and brings the focus back to the immediate practical concern of the checkout time. All responses are logically consistent and contribute to the overall coherence of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is one instance of overlap between [00:08] and [00:09] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is finishing. This is a 1-second overlap. The prompt states that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this instance, being only 1 second and immediately followed by Speaker B saying \"Sorry to interrupt,\" falls into the acceptable category. It indicates active listening and anticipation rather than a disruptive overlap. All pauses between turns are either 0 or 1 second, which are considered \"small pauses\" and are perfectly natural and acceptable in conversation. There are no prolonged pauses or extended overlapping turns that would be deemed harmful to fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--13079",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey! What was that for?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: A snowball fight is a snowball fight! You gotta be prepared for anything.\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: Yeah, well, you didn't exactly hit me in the face like I wanted to.\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: Oh, come on! It's not like I was aiming for your head or\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker A: Wait, you actually wanted me to hit you in the face? Why would you want that?\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B: I just thought it would make the game more intense, you know? Whatever. It's still not fair.\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker A: Hey, life's not fair. Get used to it.\n[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker B: That's easy for you to say. You always get what you want.\n[00:29 - 00:30] Speaker A: Do not!\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker B: Yes, you do! You're always the one who's in the right place at the right time to\n[00:34 - 00:37] Speaker A: Hold on, are you saying you're upset because you feel left out?\n[00:38 - 00:44] Speaker B: It is true! And I'm sick of it! I'm sick of always being left behind while you get to go off and have all the fun.\n[00:44 - 00:49] Speaker A: Sania, that's not fair. You know I didn't mean to leave you behind.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance throughout. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, even when the topic subtly shifts.\n*   The initial exchange about the snowball fight is perfectly coherent.\n*   Speaker A's unexpected revelation about wanting to be hit in the face leads to a direct and logical follow-up question from Speaker A, which Speaker B then answers.\n*   Speaker B's shift to \"It's still not fair\" is a natural emotional reaction, building on the perceived lack of intensity or \"fairness\" in the game, which Speaker A then directly addresses with \"life's not fair.\"\n*   The conversation then delves into Speaker B's deeper feelings of being \"left out\" and \"left behind,\" which is a logical progression from the general complaint about fairness to a personal grievance. Speaker A's insightful question, \"are you saying you're upset because you feel left out?\" shows strong understanding and helps to uncover the underlying issue.\n*   Speaker B's confirmation and elaboration, followed by Speaker A's empathetic response, maintain high relevance and logical consistency, showing the speakers are actively listening and responding to the content and emotion of each other's contributions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses that would disrupt the flow of the conversation. The pauses that do occur (e.g., 1 second between [00:01] and [00:02], [00:30] and [00:31], [00:37] and [00:38]) are brief and natural, allowing for processing without feeling awkward.\n\nThere are a couple of brief overlaps:\n*   `[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B` and `[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker A`: Speaker A interrupts Speaker B by 1 second. This is a natural interruption, indicating a strong immediate reaction (surprise/question) to what Speaker B is saying, and does not hinder understanding.\n*   `[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker B` and `[00:34 - 00:37] Speaker A`: Speaker A interrupts Speaker B by 1 second. This is also a natural and common conversational move, where Speaker A interjects to offer an interpretation or a probing question based on Speaker B's ongoing statement.\n\nThese brief overlaps contribute to the dynamic and engaged nature of the conversation rather than detracting from its fluency. They are not \"extended overlaps\" that cause confusion or conversational breakdown.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--116669",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi there. How much is that shirt over there?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: That shirt is $25.\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker A: Okay, I'll take it.\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Great! I'll just need your name and address for our customer records\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker A: Oh, before I forget, do you accept credit cards?\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: Yes, we do accept credit cards. Now, if I could just get your name and address for our records?\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A: My name is Ashlea Smith and my address is 123 Main Street.\n[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker B: Excellent, thank you very much Ms. Smith!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue presents a straightforward transactional interaction.\nSpeaker A's initial query about the shirt's price is relevant to a shopping context. Speaker B's response provides the direct information requested.\nSpeaker A's decision to buy the shirt logically follows the price information.\nSpeaker B's request for name and address is a common step in retail transactions, often for customer records or loyalty programs, making it relevant within the sales process.\nSpeaker A's interjection about credit cards, while overlapping, is highly relevant. It addresses the practical aspect of payment *before* proceeding with the administrative details, which is a natural thought process for a customer.\nSpeaker B's confirmation of credit card acceptance and immediate re-prompt for the name and address maintains logical consistency by addressing Speaker A's query and then returning to the previously stated next step in the transaction.\nSpeaker A's provision of the name and address directly answers Speaker B's re-prompt.\nSpeaker B's concluding remark is a standard polite closing.\n\nOverall, the conversation is highly coherent, logically consistent, and all turns are directly relevant to the evolving sales transaction. There are no off-topic remarks or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe transcript indicates one extended overlap:\n- [00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Great! I'll just need your name and address for our customer records\n- [00:10 - 00:13] Speaker A: Oh, before I forget, do you accept credit cards?\n\nThis overlap lasts for approximately 1 second (from 00:10 to 00:11). While the instructions state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged overlaps are harmful,\" a 1-second overlap where Speaker A interjects with a relevant question is not necessarily \"harmful\" in a natural conversation. It suggests Speaker A had a thought and jumped in, which is common. It doesn't disrupt the flow severely or indicate a breakdown in understanding.\n\nThere are no long pauses indicated between turns. The turns follow each other with very short gaps (e.g., 1-second gap between Speaker A's \"take it\" and Speaker B's response, or between Speaker A's credit card question and Speaker B's reply). These short gaps are natural and do not impede fluency.\n\nGiven the context, the single 1-second overlap is minor and represents a natural conversational interjection rather than a disruptive or prolonged overlap. The pace of the conversation appears natural with no awkward silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--60577",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm going to move my pawn in front of the king two spaces to open\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: Well, I'll have to stop you there. If you move your pawn forward, then I can capture it with my queen.\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker A: But then I can move my bishop and put you in checkmate.\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker B: Ah, but I can block your bishop with my knight.\n[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker A: Well, then I'll move my rook and put you in a position\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker B: Wait, before you do that, have you considered what happens if I move my queen to block your rook? That could change the entire game.\n[00:25 - 00:35] Speaker A: Ah, but I can block your queen with my knight. And besides, if you put me in checkmate, then I'll just take your king and win the game anyway. So it looks like you're stuck.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue maintains topic coherence throughout, consistently revolving around a game of chess and hypothetical moves. Each speaker's turn generally responds to the previous one, attempting to counter the opponent's proposed strategy.\n\nHowever, there is a significant issue with logical consistency in Speaker A's final turn ([00:25 - 00:35]). Speaker A states, \"And besides, if you put me in checkmate, then I'll just take your king and win the game anyway.\" This statement fundamentally misunderstands or disregards the rules of chess. In chess, checkmate signifies the end of the game and a loss for the player whose king is checkmated. The idea of \"taking your king and winning the game anyway\" after being checkmated is logically inconsistent with the game's rules. This breaks the internal logic of the conversation within the established game context. While the prior turns were logically consistent within the game's framework, this final statement represents a major flaw in response relevance due to a lack of logical consistency with the shared understanding of the game.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally very good. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n*   [00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B starts speaking at 00:03 while Speaker A finishes at 00:04, resulting in a 1-second overlap. This is a very common and natural conversational overlap, indicating active listening and eagerness to respond.\n*   [00:17 - 00:24] Speaker B starts speaking at 00:17 while Speaker A finishes at 00:18, also a 1-second overlap. Similar to the above, this indicates natural turn-taking and engagement.\n\nThere are also two instances of short pauses:\n*   [00:11 - 00:12]: A 1-second pause between Speaker A and Speaker B's turns.\n*   [00:24 - 00:25]: A 1-second pause between Speaker B and Speaker A's turns.\nThese are brief and natural pauses, indicating a moment of thought or simple turn-taking, and do not disrupt the flow of conversation.\n\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected. The conversation flows naturally and is highly interactive, reflecting an engaged discussion between the speakers.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--349",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Next week I'm going to New York to sign a business contract. What would you suggest I see while I'm exploring the\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but do you already have your itinerary planned out, or are you looking for suggestions on how to fill your free time there?\n[00:13 - 00:26] Speaker A: I do have some meetings scheduled, but I'm definitely looking for suggestions for my free time. You should definitely see the UN building and from there, you could walk over to Broadway and see a movie or catch a\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker B: Speaking of Broadway, do you have any particular shows in mind, or are you open to recommendations?\n[00:30 - 00:41] Speaker A: I'm open to recommendations! But I was also curious about New York's universities. I'm especially interested in learning about the schools there and the courses they offer.\n[00:41 - 00:47] Speaker B: Columbia University and New York University are two of the best schools in the city. I'm sure they offer excellent courses.\n[00:48 - 00:51] Speaker A: That sounds great. Do you have a map of the city?\n[00:51 - 01:03] Speaker B: Yes, I have one right here in fact. I can give you this one, but I'd also suggest that you stop at the visitor's office near the train station. They will have good up-to-date maps and they can give you more tourist information about the city.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates by asking for suggestions for New York, which Speaker B addresses by clarifying the type of suggestions needed (itinerary vs. free time), a very logical and helpful response. Speaker A then confirms they need suggestions for free time, and Speaker B immediately provides relevant recommendations (UN building, Broadway). The conversation smoothly transitions to Broadway shows, then to universities, which is a natural expansion of the topic \"things to see/learn about in New York.\" Speaker B provides relevant information about universities. Finally, Speaker A's request for a map is a practical and relevant follow-up to planning a trip, and Speaker B's offer and additional advice (visitor's office) are highly relevant and helpful. There are no sudden topic shifts or incoherent responses. Each turn builds logically on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and natural. There is one brief overlap detected: Speaker B's turn at [00:25 - 00:30] starts while Speaker A's turn at [00:13 - 00:26] is still ongoing, resulting in a 1-second overlap. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" so this minor overlap does not detract from the fluency. There are no extended overlaps or long silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--144581",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Gaston, it's so good to see you! How have you been?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: I've been good, thanks. It's been a busy few months, but things are starting to settle down\n[00:08 - 00:18] Speaker A: Oh, I totally get that! Busy times can be overwhelming. By the way, how are your children doing? I haven't seen them in a while and I'm really interested in meeting them.\n[00:18 - 00:28] Speaker B: They're doing well. My eldest just started high school and is really enjoying it. My middle child is in grade six and he's doing well too. And my youngest is in kindergarten and she is already\n[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker A: Kindergarten! That's such a fun age. Can I come over sometime and meet them? I'd love to catch up with you too.\n[00:35 - 00:38] Speaker B: Sure, that would be great! Let me know when you're free and we'll set something up.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate high relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B** directly answers Speaker A's opening question \"How have you been?\".\n2.  **[00:08 - 00:18] Speaker A** acknowledges B's previous statement (\"busy few months\") before smoothly transitioning to a related, but new, topic (\"how are your children doing?\"). This transition, signaled by \"By the way,\" is natural and maintains coherence. Speaker A also expresses interest in meeting them, setting up the next part of the conversation.\n3.  **[00:18 - 00:28] Speaker B** provides a detailed and relevant update on their children, directly addressing A's question.\n4.  **[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker A** reacts enthusiastically to \"Kindergarten!\", which was the last piece of information B provided, showing active listening and engagement. Speaker A then follows up on their earlier expressed interest by proposing a visit, linking back to their previous desire to meet the children and catch up with B. This shows excellent recall and logical progression.\n5.  **[00:35 - 00:38] Speaker B** provides a clear, positive, and actionable response to A's suggestion, confirming willingness to meet.\nOverall, the dialogue flows logically, each turn building naturally on the previous one, and all responses are highly relevant to the ongoing conversation topics. There are no instances of topic drift or illogical statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good, demonstrating natural conversational rhythm with acceptable variations.\n1.  **Overlaps:**\n    *   At **[00:08 - 00:09]**: Speaker A starts speaking \"Oh, I totally get that!\" just as Speaker B finishes their sentence. This is a very brief (1 second) and natural overlap, indicative of empathetic listening and eagerness to respond, which is common in fluent conversation. It's not a prolonged or disruptive overlap.\n    *   At **[00:28]**: Speaker A interjects \"Kindergarten!\" precisely at the point Speaker B mentions it, interrupting B's sentence. While an interruption, it is immediate, brief, and driven by enthusiasm (\"That's such a fun age\"). This type of brief, reactive overlap is generally considered acceptable in natural conversation, as it conveys engagement rather than a deliberate attempt to talk over the other person for an extended period. The prompt specifies that \"brief overlaps... are acceptable,\" and this fits that description.\n2.  **Pauses:**\n    *   All pauses between speaker turns are very short (1 second or less: e.g., 0:03-0:04, 0:09-0:08 (overlap), 0:18-0:18 (overlap), 0:34-0:35). These are typical conversational pauses and do not constitute \"long pauses\" that would hinder fluency.\nThe overall impression is a smooth, natural, and engaging conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--138841",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hi, coach. Just wanted to let you know that I'm starting my warm-up jog.\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: Great, Garner! Make sure you stretch out those muscles good before you start running. You don't want to pull anything\n[00:10 - 00:19] Speaker A: Oh, coach, speaking of stretching, do you think I should focus more on my hamstrings or calves today? I felt a bit tight in both areas yesterday.\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker B: Definitely pay extra attention to your hamstrings, but don't neglect your calves either. Just let me know when you're ready to start your main workout,\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker A: I will, coach! And I'll make sure to stretch thoroughly before sprinting. Thanks!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates the conversation with an update relevant to a coach-athlete relationship. Speaker B responds with appropriate advice, maintaining the coaching role. Speaker A then asks a follow-up question directly related to Speaker B's advice (stretching), which Speaker B answers specifically and adds a relevant instruction. Speaker A concludes by acknowledging and confirming the advice. The topic remains coherent throughout, flowing naturally from warm-up to specific stretching advice, reflecting a clear and purposeful interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are smooth and immediate (e.g., Speaker A ends at 00:04, Speaker B starts at 00:04; Speaker A ends at 00:19, Speaker B starts at 00:20). There are two brief overlaps (00:10-00:11, 00:26-00:27), each lasting only 1 second. These are considered \"brief overlaps\" and are acceptable in natural conversation, indicating a dynamic and engaged exchange rather than disruptive interruptions. There are no \"prolonged pauses\" or \"extended overlaps\" that would hinder the flow of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--9558",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm sorry, what did you say? I don't think I heard you correctly.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: I said that the tests came back and it looks like you have cancer.\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A: Cancer? But that's impossible. I'm only 26 years old. How could I have cancer\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: I know it's hard to believe, but cancer doesn't discriminate by age. We need to focus on what we can do next.\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker A: But what do we do now? What is the treatment plan?\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker B: We will need to start with some more tests to determine the stage of the cancer and then we can discuss the\n[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker A: Are these tests urgent? How soon can we get the results and start the treatment?\n[00:34 - 00:40] Speaker B: Yes, they're urgent. We'll schedule them as soon as possible, and once we have the results, we can develop the treatment plan from there.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses the previous statement and contributes meaningfully to the conversation's progression. Speaker A's reactions (disbelief, questions about age and treatment) are highly realistic and appropriate given the shocking news of a cancer diagnosis. Speaker B consistently provides direct answers, empathetic acknowledgments, and steers the conversation towards practical next steps, maintaining the doctor's role effectively. The topic remains coherent throughout, moving from diagnosis confirmation to initial shock, and then to immediate next steps for testing and treatment planning. There are no instances of speakers going off-topic or misunderstanding each other's contributions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very natural.\n**Pauses:** There are only very brief pauses (e.g., 1 second between Speaker B's turn at 0:19 and Speaker A's at 0:20, and 1 second between Speaker A's turn at 0:33 and Speaker B's at 0:34). These are well within the acceptable range and contribute to a natural conversational rhythm, allowing for processing time, especially in such a high-stakes discussion. There are no prolonged or awkward silences.\n**Overlaps:** There is one instance of an overlap: Speaker A begins speaking at 0:28 while Speaker B is still speaking until 0:29. This results in a 1-second overlap. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" A 1-second overlap is indeed brief and natural, especially in an urgent conversation where Speaker A is seeking immediate answers about the urgency of tests. It does not appear to hinder understanding or disrupt the flow significantly. The conversation continues smoothly after this brief overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--11743",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, what do you see in my palm?\n[00:02 - 00:17] Speaker B: Well, I see two main lines. The first is the line that runs from the base of the thumb to the bottom of the pinky finger. This line is called the life line. It represents a person's vitality and overall health. The second line is the one that runs from the edge of the palm to the middle of\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker A: Sorry, just to clarify, when you say vitality and overall health, does that include mental health as well?\n[00:23 - 00:39] Speaker B: Good question. The life line mainly focuses on physical health, but it can sometimes reflect mental resilience too. Now, as I was saying, the second line runs from the edge of the palm to the middle of the palm, and this is called the head line. It represents a person's thoughts and intellectual ability.\n[00:40 - 00:47] Speaker A: And the line that runs from the edge of my palm to the middle of my palm represents my thoughts and intellectual ability?\n[00:47 - 00:50] Speaker B: Yes, it indicates how sharp and quick-witted you are.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and maintain logical consistency throughout the conversation. Speaker B's explanations of the palm lines directly address Speaker A's initial request. Speaker A's clarifying question about mental health is pertinent and Speaker B's response appropriately addresses it before smoothly transitioning back to the original topic of the second line. Speaker A's subsequent rephrasing of the headline's meaning serves as a confirmation, and Speaker B's affirmation maintains the topic coherence. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There is one brief overlap between Speaker B's turn (ending at 00:17) and Speaker A's turn (starting at 00:16). This overlap lasts for about 1 second and is functional, as Speaker A interjects for a clarification. This is considered a brief and acceptable overlap rather than a prolonged or harmful one, as it facilitates immediate clarification. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are generally smooth and immediate or with minimal, natural pauses (e.g., 1-second pause before Speaker A's turn at 00:40).\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--440",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Do you remember a certain piece from your chorus days?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Of course! It's called Gabriel's Oboe. It's about someone playing the oboe.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: Wow, that's great! Do you still have the sheet music for Gabriel's Oboe?\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but I just thought of something—how did you come across Gabriel's Oboe? Was it a recommendation from someone in the chorus?\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker A: Actually, it was suggested by our chorus director. But back to the sheet music, do you still have it?\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker B: Hm - probably. I've still got my chorus jacket somewhere.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Speaker B's initial response (00:03-00:07) directly answers Speaker A's question. Speaker A's follow-up (00:08-00:12) builds coherently on the previous turn. Speaker B then shifts the topic slightly (00:11-00:18) by asking a question about how Speaker A knew the piece, but this is a related tangent and is explicitly prefaced with \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating awareness of the conversational flow. Speaker A handles this well (00:19-00:25) by answering Speaker B's question and then skillfully redirecting the conversation back to their original query (\"But back to the sheet music, do you still have it?\"). Speaker B's final response (00:25-00:29) directly addresses Speaker A's persistent question, albeit with a slight addition about their jacket, which is a minor, natural embellishment rather than a derailment. Logical consistency and topic coherence are maintained throughout, with natural conversational adjustments.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is well-maintained. There are no long pauses between turns. One brief overlap is identified: Speaker B's turn (00:11-00:18) starts at 00:11 while Speaker A's previous turn ends at 00:12. This is a 1-second overlap. Crucially, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to cut in,\" which makes the interaction feel natural and human-like, rather than a robotic interruption. The prompt states that \"brief overlaps... are acceptable,\" and this instance perfectly fits that description, showing a dynamic, real-time conversation. There are no extended, disruptive overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--135",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:14] Speaker A: I can't see why you need to go out to enjoy yourself. Why can't you have a nice time, watching TV with me? And when you are at home, you're either reading a book or something, you never actually sit and enjoy a good program with me anymore.\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker B: I don't want to watch TV. I find it boring.\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker A: Oh, it's not always boring. Come off it!\n[00:19 - 00:27] Speaker B: Well, I'm sorry, but it usually is. I just don't think watching all this TV is good for me. I can only watch about one program a day, and\n[00:26 - 00:34] Speaker A: Wait, only one program a week? Isn't that a bit extreme? There are so many different genres; surely, there must be something that could interest you.\n[00:35 - 00:39] Speaker B: Maybe, but I still think it's better to go out and do something more engaging.\n[00:39 - 00:41] Speaker A: So you think it's better to go out, do you?\n[00:42 - 00:48] Speaker B: Well, I just feel there are lots of things to do that you can learn from and to be watching TV is not something I want to do.\n[00:49 - 00:52] Speaker A: OK, you name something that we can share.\n[00:52 - 00:55] Speaker B: What about when we do our music, for example, we share that.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate high logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates the conversation by expressing a desire to spend time with Speaker B watching TV, and Speaker B immediately offers a reason for not wanting to (finding it boring). Each subsequent turn directly addresses the previous one, either by countering an argument (e.g., A's \"it's not always boring\"), elaborating on a point (e.g., B's explanation of why TV isn't good for them), or shifting the conversation towards a resolution (e.g., A asking B to name a shared activity, B providing \"music\"). Speaker A's momentary mishearing of \"day\" as \"week\" (00:26) is a minor, natural conversational blip that is quickly absorbed and doesn't derail the logical flow or coherence of the argument; Speaker A recovers and continues with a relevant point about genres. The dialogue effectively explores the differing preferences and moves towards identifying a shared interest.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are several brief overlaps, such as at 00:13, 00:26, 00:39, and 00:52. However, these overlaps are consistently short (typically 0.5 to 1 second) and appear natural within the flow of an engaged conversation. They do not constitute \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" overlapping turns that would be considered harmful or disruptive. Instead, they indicate active listening and eagerness to respond, or simply natural turn-taking where speakers slightly anticipate the end of the other's utterance. There are no noticeable long pauses between turns, which contributes to a very natural and dynamic conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--63925",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Joe, where's the Phillips head screwdriver? I need to fix this cabinet.\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: I'm not sure. I think I saw it in the kitchen drawer.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: I already looked there. It's not in the\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: Wait, did you check under the sink? Sometimes we leave tools there after fixing the plumbing.\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker A: I didn't think to check there. I'll take a look. But if it's not there, then where else could it be?\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker B: Well, if it's not under the sink, maybe we should just buy a new one.\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker A: Yeah, that might be the best option if we can't find it soon.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Speaker B's initial suggestion of the kitchen drawer is a direct and logical answer to Speaker A's question. When Speaker A indicates that location was already checked, Speaker B provides an alternative, relevant suggestion (under the sink), along with a logical reason. Speaker A's subsequent turns acknowledge Speaker B's suggestions and continue to push for a solution or next steps. Speaker B's final suggestion to \"buy a new one\" is a pragmatic and relevant solution if the tool cannot be found, and Speaker A's agreement concludes the immediate problem-solving process logically. The topic remains consistently focused on finding the screwdriver and resolving the issue. There are no irrelevant or off-topic contributions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is largely natural and appropriate. There is one brief overlap identified:\n*   **[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: I already looked there. It's not in the**\n*   **[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: Wait, did you check under the sink?**\nThis indicates a 1-second overlap where Speaker B begins speaking before Speaker A finishes their sentence. While Speaker A is cut off, this is a brief overlap and is common in natural conversation, often indicating eagerness to contribute a new idea, especially when the previous suggestion was dismissed. It does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or \"extended\" overlap that harms the conversation flow significantly. There are no long pauses detected between turns; turns are taken promptly, contributing to a fluid and natural conversational pace.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--66840",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: This place is amazing! I can't believe how good the food tastes, especially\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but did you notice how they present each dish? The plating is just as impressive as the flavors.\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A: Yeah, the presentation is stunning. The flavors are so complex and layered. I've never had anything like it.\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker B: That's what makes it so special. You can really taste the passion that went into creating each dish, and\n[00:22 - 00:30] Speaker A: Speaking of passion, do you know if the chef has a background in molecular gastronomy? Some of these techniques seem really advanced.\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker B: I'm not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me. It's definitely worth the price tag. I would come here again in a heartbeat.\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker A: That's great to hear! I'm so glad you enjoyed it as much as I do.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining a consistent topic thread about the dining experience, specifically the food's quality, presentation, the chef's techniques, and the overall value.\n- Speaker A introduces the topic of amazing food.\n- Speaker B responds by focusing on presentation, which is a related aspect of the dining experience.\n- Speaker A acknowledges the presentation and elaborates on the flavors, maintaining coherence.\n- Speaker B continues this by linking the quality to \"passion.\"\n- Speaker A naturally picks up on \"passion\" to inquire about the chef's background in molecular gastronomy, directly linking it to the advanced techniques observed in the food. This is a highly relevant and insightful follow-up.\n- Speaker B directly addresses the question about the chef's background, then transitions smoothly to the value and enjoyment of the experience, which is a logical outcome of such high-quality food.\n- Speaker A concludes by expressing satisfaction that Speaker B enjoyed the experience, tying back to the initial positive sentiment.\nThere are no instances of topic shifts that feel abrupt or irrelevant; the conversation flows very naturally.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, indicating a natural and dynamic conversation.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps.\n    - At `[00:03 - 00:04]`, Speaker B starts speaking 1 second before Speaker A finishes. Speaker B explicitly says \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes this overlap feel natural and polite, rather than disruptive.\n    - At `[00:22 - 00:23]`, Speaker A starts speaking 1 second before Speaker B finishes. This brief overlap suggests eagerness to contribute and is common in natural conversation, not prolonged or harmful.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses. The longest pause observed is a 1-second gap between Speaker A's turn ending at `00:30` and Speaker B's turn starting at `00:31`. This is well within the acceptable range for natural conversation.\nThe timing of turns, including the brief overlaps and minimal pauses, contributes to a realistic and fluent interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--70568",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Hey, what's up? I'm starting to feel really restless and bored. This party is kind of dragging, and\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: Yeah, I know. It's not really my scene either. But we can't just leave yet, we only just got here.\n[00:12 - 00:24] Speaker A: I know, I know. But it's so boring here! There's nothing to do and everyone looks so uptight. Maybe we could sneak out for a little while? Just for a quick walk or maybe grab\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: Wait, are you sure that's a good idea? I mean, it's cold outside and I left my jacket at home.\n[00:30 - 00:37] Speaker A: Oh, come on! It'll be fun! We can walk around the block a few times and then come back. No one will even know we're gone.\n[00:38 - 00:42] Speaker B: Alright, alright. Let's go then. But we have to be quick about it!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically builds upon the previous one.\n- Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's boredom and then adds a practical constraint (\"we only just got here\").\n- Speaker A acknowledges B's constraint and then proposes a specific action (\"sneak out for a little while?\").\n- Speaker B's hesitation and concerns (\"cold outside,\" \"left my jacket\") are a direct and relevant reaction to A's suggestion.\n- Speaker A's persuasive attempts (\"It'll be fun!\") are a direct counter-argument to B's concerns.\n- Finally, Speaker B's reluctant agreement with a condition (\"But we have to be quick about it!\") provides a logical resolution to the mini-negotiation.\nThe topic coherence is maintained throughout the conversation, revolving around their dissatisfaction with the party and the idea of temporarily leaving.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is also excellent.\n- There is a brief overlap between 00:05 and 00:07, where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their thought. This is a very common and natural occurrence in conversational turn-taking, indicating active listening or anticipation, rather than an disruptive overlap. It lasts only 2 seconds.\n- There is another very brief overlap at 00:24, where Speaker B starts almost immediately as Speaker A finishes. This is also indicative of natural, smooth turn-taking without any noticeable pauses.\n- There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns, contributing to the natural flow of the conversation. The rhythm of the dialogue feels spontaneous and unforced.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--19880",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:18] Speaker A: It feels like ever since my friend died, I can't stop thinking about death. I'm terrified of dying myself, and I go out of my way to avoid dangerous activities and situations. I'm always careful to stay healthy and fit, but it feels like no matter what I do, death is always lurking around the corner,\n[00:17 - 00:27] Speaker B: I can understand why you'd feel that way, especially after losing someone close to you. But have you considered talking to a therapist about these fears? It might help to have someone guide you through these thoughts.\n[00:28 - 00:45] Speaker A: I have thought about it, but I'm not sure if it would really help. How can I enjoy life when I'm constantly afraid that something bad is going to happen? It feels like every time I try to relax and enjoy myself, my mind immediately goes to all the ways that something could go wrong.\n[00:46 - 00:55] Speaker B: That sounds like you're suffering from anxiety. Do you have any other symptoms of anxiety? For example, do you have trouble sleeping or eating due to your constant worries,\n[00:54 - 01:13] Speaker A: Yes, definitely. I've been having trouble sleeping because I keep having nightmares about dying. And even when I'm awake, I can't seem to stop thinking about all the ways that something could happen to me. As for eating, I've lost weight because I don't have an appetite anymore. Everything just tastes bland and unappetizing.\n[01:14 - 01:24] Speaker B: Those are all common symptoms of anxiety. It sounds like you're really struggling right now. But fortunately, there are treatments that can help alleviate your symptoms and help you live a more enjoyable life again.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A introduces a problem (fear of death/anxiety after loss), and Speaker B responds by acknowledging their feelings and suggesting a relevant course of action (therapy). Speaker A then elaborates on their struggles, which prompts Speaker B to identify potential symptoms of anxiety and ask for more details. Speaker A provides these details, and Speaker B validates them, offering reassurance and mentioning available treatments. Each turn directly builds on the previous one, maintaining a clear and logical flow from problem presentation to symptom identification and potential solutions. The conversation stays focused on Speaker A's mental state and potential ways to address it.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two instances of very brief overlaps:\n1.  Speaker B's turn starts at [00:17] while Speaker A's previous turn ends at [00:18]. This is a 1-second overlap.\n2.  Speaker A's turn starts at [00:54] while Speaker B's previous turn ends at [00:55]. This is also a 1-second overlap.\nAs per the instructions, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" These overlaps are indeed brief and do not hinder the flow or understanding of the conversation. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected between speaker turns, making the dialogue feel natural and fluid.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--473",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Excuse me, how can I get special discount coupons?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Buy more and get more special discount coupons.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker A: Can I get a discount coupon if I buy these goods?\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: Of course. You get a coupon for every 3 bags of sugar.\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker A: But how much discount can I get if I use it to buy goods next time?\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker B: 10 pence off if you use this coupon.\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker A: Can I buy everything in the supermarket with it?\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker B: Yeah, you need to take advantage of it within its expiry date, which\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker A: Oh, I almost forgot to ask, are there any restrictions on what items I can use the coupon for?\n[00:33 - 00:41] Speaker B: No restrictions, you can use it on anything, but you were asking about the expiry date earlier. The coupon can be used for at least one year.\n[00:41 - 00:46] Speaker A: I see. I will take 9 bags of sugar so that I can get 3 coupons.\n[00:47 - 00:48] Speaker B: All right. I will get them for you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's questions progressively delve deeper into the mechanics and restrictions of the discount coupons (how to get them, how much discount, what can be bought, restrictions, expiry). Speaker B provides direct and relevant answers to each query.\n\nA minor point of logical inconsistency occurs when Speaker B states at [00:33 - 00:41] \"but you were asking about the expiry date earlier.\" In fact, Speaker B was the one who introduced the expiry date at [00:23 - 00:27] and didn't complete the thought, and Speaker A then immediately shifted to asking about restrictions. While B's statement is factually incorrect regarding who asked, B still provides the necessary information about the expiry date. This slight misattribution doesn't significantly derail the conversation's topic coherence or information flow. The dialogue successfully progresses from A's initial query to A understanding the coupon mechanics and making a decision.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is consistently good. There are no extended overlaps indicated in the transcript, nor are there any long pauses that disrupt the flow of conversation. The pauses between turns are brief (typically 0-1 second), which is natural and promotes smooth turn-taking. The transition at [00:27] where Speaker B's sentence cuts off (\"which\") and Speaker A immediately follows with a new question (\"Oh, I almost forgot to ask...\") suggests very quick turn-taking or a brief, non-disruptive overlap, rather than a prolonged or harmful one. The overall rhythm of the conversation feels natural and efficient.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--21286",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, dentist! Look at my new tooth!\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Wow, that's amazing! How did it come in\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: I don't know. It just grew one day.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Really? Did you notice any discomfort or pain when it started growing?\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker A: Not really. It just feels weird to have an extra tooth.\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker B: That's interesting. Sometimes new teeth can cause some discomfort, but if you're feeling okay, that's great!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A introduces the topic of a \"new tooth,\" and Speaker B, acting as a dentist, consistently asks relevant follow-up questions about its appearance, discomfort, and general well-being. Speaker A's responses, though describing an unusual biological event, are consistent with their initial claim and directly address Speaker B's inquiries. For example, Speaker B's question \"How did it come in\" is met with A's \"I don't know. It just grew one day.\" Later, Speaker B's concern about \"discomfort or pain\" is directly answered by A with \"Not really. It just feels weird.\" The conversation maintains a clear focus on the \"new tooth\" throughout, with each turn building logically on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There is one brief overlap between Speaker B and Speaker A from [00:04 - 00:05], where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This overlap lasts for approximately 1 second. As per the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\" and this instance falls into that category, not causing any disruption to the flow or understanding of the dialogue. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses between speaker turns, allowing the conversation to proceed naturally and smoothly without any noticeable hitches.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--47",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hello, Lin Fang!\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Oh! Hi, Lucy!\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: What's the next lesson, Lin Fang?\n[00:06 - 00:06] Speaker B: English.\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker A: Oh, good! That's my favorite subject.\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: That's because you always find it so easy. I find it very difficult so I don't enjoy it\n[00:13 - 00:22] Speaker A: Wait, really? I didn't know you struggled with English. Have you tried asking Nancy for help? She seems to be really good at it.\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B: Nancy finds English quite difficult too. But she says it's her favorite subject.\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker A: Yes, I know, and her second favorite subject is history. She\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker B: Math, right? Speaking of which, I really struggle with it. I always get the answers wrong.\n[00:35 - 00:39] Speaker A: So if English is your favorite subject, what's your second favorite?\n[00:39 - 00:41] Speaker B: PE. What about you?\n[00:41 - 00:53] Speaker A: I'm not sure. Both Chinese and science are my favorite subjects. I think I like Chinese a little more than science. By the way, what were you saying about Nancy's second favorite subject earlier?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue generally maintains topic coherence, revolving around school subjects and personal preferences. Speakers respond to each other's statements, and there's a natural progression of ideas. However, there is a significant breakdown in logical consistency at **[00:35 - 00:39]** where Speaker A asks Speaker B, \"So if English is your favorite subject, what's your second favorite?\". This directly contradicts Speaker B's clear statement earlier at **[00:09 - 00:14]**: \"I find it very difficult so I don't enjoy it\". This indicates a failure in Speaker A's understanding or recall of the conversation, leading to a question that is illogical based on the established context. While Speaker B responds to this inconsistent question, it highlights a major flaw in Speaker A's coherence and active listening. The subsequent return to Nancy's favorite subject shows an attempt to manage previous interruptions, but the core inconsistency regarding B's English preference is a notable issue.\n\n**Logical Consistency:** The key issue is A's assumption that English is B's favorite subject despite B explicitly stating otherwise. This is a clear logical inconsistency.\n**Topic Coherence:** Topics generally flow from greetings to school subjects, personal preferences, and difficulties. The return to Nancy's favorite subject at the end is a reasonable effort to circle back to a previously interrupted point, maintaining coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue exhibits good interactional fluency. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that disrupt the conversational flow.\n*   There is a brief overlap at **[00:13 - 00:14]** where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing. This is a very short (1 second) overlap typical of natural, fast-paced conversation, where one speaker might anticipate the end of another's turn.\n*   Similarly, there's another brief overlap at **[00:30 - 00:31]** where Speaker B interjects to complete Speaker A's sentence. This is also a short (1 second) and natural conversational feature, not an extended or prolonged disruption.\nOverall, these brief overlaps do not negatively impact the flow; rather, they contribute to the naturalness of the interaction. There are no noticeable long pauses between turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--407",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Well, where am I going to get that sort of costume? I\n[00:01 - 00:08] Speaker B: Wait, before we decide on the costume, do you have any specific idea of what you might want? Maybe something more comfortable?\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker A: I hadn't thought about comfort yet, but I do like the idea of something unique. As I was saying, I don't know where to find that sort of costume.\n[00:17 - 00:20] Speaker B: Leave it to me. I know exactly where to find it.\n[00:20 - 00:21] Speaker A: Oh good.\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker B: Excellent, come over at ten o'clock and we will start at the shopping center, the one around the corner from my house. They have just the shop we need.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B's initial interruption (at 00:01) is not only relevant but also a logical strategic move to clarify Speaker A's needs before committing to finding a \"sort of costume.\" Speaker A's subsequent responses address Speaker B's questions directly while reiterating the core concern. Speaker B then provides a solution that directly addresses Speaker A's problem and follows up with concrete plans. The topic of finding a costume is maintained coherently throughout, and each turn builds logically on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There is one brief overlap (00:01 - 00:02) where Speaker B interjects over Speaker A's unfinished sentence. This is a very short overlap and serves a clear interactional function (to redirect the conversation). It feels natural and doesn't disrupt the flow. There are also a couple of short pauses (e.g., 00:08-00:09, 00:21-00:22) which are brief and natural, allowing for processing time without feeling prolonged or awkward. No extended overlaps or long pauses are detected, making the conversation feel smooth and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--49455",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, I need to talk to you about something.\n[00:03 - 00:03] Speaker B: What's up?\n[00:04 - 00:14] Speaker A: I found out that you lied to me about something and I'm really upset about it. I thought we were friends and that we could be honest with each other, but now I don't know what to believe anymore.\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker B: Wait, Cesia, I can explain. I never wanted to hurt you, and I know it feels like a betrayal. I should have been upfront with you.\n[00:21 - 00:35] Speaker A: Cesia, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to lie to you. It's just that sometimes people lie for different reasons and sometimes it's hard to tell the truth. But I promise that from now on, I'll always be honest with you no matter how difficult\n[00:34 - 00:40] Speaker B: I really hope so because trust is important to me. But can you tell me why you lied to me in the first place?\n[00:40 - 00:51] Speaker A: Well, the truth is, I was embarrassed about something and I didn't want you to know. But I realize now that it was wrong of me to lie and that I should have just been honest with you from the start.\n[00:52 - 00:57] Speaker B: Yeah, I wish you would have been honest with me too. But I'm glad we talked about it and that we're still friends.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is critically flawed. The conversation begins with Speaker A accusing Speaker B of lying (\"I found out that you lied to me about something...\"). Speaker B responds by taking responsibility and admitting they \"should have been upfront.\" However, immediately after this, Speaker A's next turn (00:21) completely reverses the roles, with Speaker A saying, \"Cesia, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to lie to you... I promise that from now on, I'll always be honest with you.\" This constitutes a major logical inconsistency and a complete breakdown in topic coherence. The narrative suddenly shifts from Speaker A being the wronged party to Speaker A being the one who lied, without any explanation or transitional dialogue. Speaker B's subsequent questions and Speaker A's explanation then proceed as if Speaker A was the liar all along, rendering the initial accusation and Speaker B's admission irrelevant to the continuing conversation. This fundamental shift makes the dialogue nonsensical in terms of its storyline and character roles. The use of \"Cesia\" is also confusing, as Speaker A addresses Speaker B as \"Cesia\" while Speaker A was also identified as \"Cesia\" by Speaker B earlier.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are no extended overlaps that disrupt the conversation flow; the detected overlaps (e.g., 00:13-00:14 and 00:34-00:35) are brief (around 1 second) and appear natural, indicative of an engaged conversation rather than a disruptive interruption. Similarly, there are no long pauses between speaker turns that would suggest hesitation or awkwardness. The turn-taking is prompt and keeps the dialogue moving at a reasonable pace.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--29380",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hi, Neighbor! I wanted to do something special for you, so I baked some cookies!\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: Aww, how sweet of you! Thank you so much, Ilias.\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A: It was no problem at all. I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate you being a good neigh and always\n[00:14 - 00:22] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I just realized I never got the chance to thank you for helping me with that heavy furniture last week. I really couldn't have done it without you.\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker A: Oh, it was nothing! I'm glad I could help. I was just saying how much I appreciate you being a good neighbor too.\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker B: Well, thank you. I appreciate it too. It's always nice to have someone to talk to around here.\n[00:35 - 00:41] Speaker A: Absolutely. Let me know if there's ever anything I can do for you, Neigh or if\n[00:40 - 00:47] Speaker B: Actually, now that you mention it, would you be able to help me with a small project this weekend? I could really use an extra pair of hands.\n[00:47 - 00:52] Speaker A: Of course! Just let me know what time works for you, and I'll be there.\n[00:52 - 00:54] Speaker B: I will, thank you. You have a good day now.\n[00:55 - 00:57] Speaker A: You too, Neighbor. Bye!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. The conversation flows naturally from Speaker A's act of kindness (cookies) and appreciation to Speaker B's reciprocal appreciation, and then to a specific thank-you for past help. This past help reinforces the theme of neighborly support, which then leads to Speaker A reiterating appreciation, and finally to Speaker B asking for future help based on Speaker A's general offer. Each turn builds logically on the previous one, maintaining a coherent topic of mutual support and neighborly relations. The \"interruption\" by Speaker B at [00:14] is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), and it serves to further the theme of mutual appreciation, making it logically consistent within the conversation's overall positive tone and theme.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two instances of overlap indicated by the timestamps:\n1.  `[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A` and `[00:14 - 00:22] Speaker B`: This indicates an overlap of 1 second (from 00:14 to 00:15). Speaker B explicitly apologizes for the interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which makes this a natural, albeit slightly disruptive, moment in conversation rather than a harmful prolonged overlap. This brief overlap is acceptable as per the guidelines.\n2.  `[00:35 - 00:41] Speaker A` and `[00:40 - 00:47] Speaker B`: This also indicates an overlap of 1 second (from 00:40 to 00:41). Speaker B's \"Actually, now that you mention it...\" directly picks up on Speaker A's offer of help, suggesting a natural turn-taking where Speaker B anticipated Speaker A's conclusion or took the opportunity to respond immediately. This is a brief overlap and does not hinder the flow of conversation.\n\nThere are no long pauses evident from the timestamps. The turns are timely and responsive. The brief, 1-second overlaps are within the acceptable range for natural conversation and do not indicate significant issues in interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--4064",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, John, have you ever heard of the abandoned mine near our town?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yeah, I've heard of it. What about it?\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm thinking about checking it out.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: Why would you want to do that? It's probably dangerous.\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A: I don't know, I just think it would be really cool to find my own ore and maybe discover\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: Wait, you're serious about this? Have you thought about what you'd do if you actually got hurt down there?\n[00:22 - 00:31] Speaker A: I mean, I'd be careful. But that's why I want to go with someone. Nobody has mined it in years, so there could still be a lot of ore there.\n[00:31 - 00:38] Speaker B: Even if there is still ore there, it's probably not worth anything. And like I said, it's probably dangerous. You shouldn't go alone.\n[00:38 - 00:41] Speaker A: Fine, I won't go alone. Will you at least\n[00:40 - 00:45] Speaker B: Hold on, are you really asking me to risk my neck for some old, abandoned mine?\n[00:45 - 00:51] Speaker A: Okay, okay, I get it. You're not interested. But I thought it'd be an adventure.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A introduces a topic, and Speaker B consistently responds to A's statements, concerns, and proposals. For example, when A suggests checking out the mine, B immediately raises safety concerns. When A tries to justify it by mentioning ore, B counters with the potential lack of value and continued danger. The conversation flows naturally from one point to the next, building on previous turns without introducing irrelevant information or abrupt topic shifts. Speaker A's final remark acknowledging Speaker B's disinterest is a logical conclusion to their interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural and continuous flow of conversation. The only overlap occurs between [00:38 - 00:41] (Speaker A) and [00:40 - 00:45] (Speaker B). This is a brief, 1-second overlap where Speaker B interjects as Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This type of brief interjection is a common and natural feature of spontaneous conversation, and the prompt explicitly states that \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" It does not constitute a \"prolonged\" overlap that would disrupt fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--120586",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Can you tell me why this new law is being put into place? I don't understand why our government is trying to take away our freedom.\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: The government is trying to protect its citizens. They believe that this new law will help keep people safe from\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker A: But how does taking away our freedom make us any safer? I don't see how this makes sense.\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B: I'm not sure, but that's what the government is saying. They must have their reasons.\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker A: Well, I don't agree with them. I think this is a terrible idea, and I'm going to do everything I can to raise awareness\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker B: I understand you're passionate about this, but you need to be careful. If you break the law, you could get in trouble.\n[00:36 - 00:44] Speaker A: I know that. But I'm not going to back down. This is important to me, and I'm not going to let anyone take away my freedom without a fight.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A consistently expresses their concern about the new law and their perceived loss of freedom, and Speaker B consistently responds by either providing the government's stated reason, admitting uncertainty, or offering a warning based on Speaker A's stated intentions. The conversation flows naturally from one point to the next, with each speaker's turn building upon the previous one. For instance, Speaker A's question about 'why' is met with Speaker B's explanation of 'protection' (00:07). Speaker A then challenges this explanation (00:12), leading to Speaker B's admission of uncertainty but reiteration of the official stance (00:19). Speaker A's declaration of intent to act (00:23) is logically followed by Speaker B's warning (00:29). The topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on the new law and its implications for freedom and safety.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is also very good. While there are brief overlaps indicated by the timestamps (e.g., Speaker A starting at 00:12 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:13, and Speaker B starting at 00:29 while Speaker A is speaking until 00:30), these are short (around 1 second) and fall within the acceptable range for \"brief overlaps\" as per the instructions. They contribute to a natural, dynamic conversational feel rather than indicating a breakdown in turn-taking. Similarly, the pauses between turns (e.g., 00:18-00:19, 00:35-00:36) are also very short (around 1 second) and are considered \"small pauses\" which are acceptable. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that disrupt the flow or understanding of the conversation. The dialogue progresses smoothly without awkward silences or prolonged instances of speakers talking over each other.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--60",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: This party rocks!\n[00:01 - 00:06] Speaker B: You said it. Good beer, good music, and on top of that, there are so many hot girls here!\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: I'm with you on that. Check out that one over there. I think I'm in lo— I'm in\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: Sorry to cut you off, but I just noticed the blond with the red dress. What do you think of her?\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker A: Oh, that's Janice. She's just new in town. You have a thing for blonds, eh?\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker B: Yeah! She could do anything she wants to me!\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker A: I bet. Why not go over and talk to her? She's really nice.\n[00:29 - 00:38] Speaker B: I don't think so. I get so nervous talking to girls. I always put my foot in my mouth, scare her off, and end up looking like a real fool. Besides, she is way out of my league.\n[00:38 - 00:41] Speaker A: Come on! Man up! You'll never know until you try.\n[00:42 - 00:46] Speaker B: Okay okay, just let me have another cup of beers to get my head in the game.\n[00:46 - 00:49] Speaker A: Alright. But I think you ought to move soon.\n[00:49 - 00:50] Speaker B: Why?\n[00:50 - 00:56] Speaker A: You never told me what you thought about the girl I pointed out earlier. You seemed pretty smitten!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n1.  **[00:01 - 00:06] Speaker B:** Directly responds to A's initial statement, expanding on why the party rocks, logically progressing the conversation.\n2.  **[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A:** Agrees with B and identifies a specific person, maintaining the topic of \"hot girls.\"\n3.  **[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B:** Although an interruption, B explicitly acknowledges it (\"Sorry to cut you off\") and immediately introduces another relevant observation related to the ongoing topic of \"hot girls,\" asking for A's opinion. This keeps the conversation focused, albeit with a slight shift in focus within the same overarching theme.\n4.  **[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker A:** Directly answers B's question about the blond and asks a relevant follow-up.\n5.  **[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker B:** Directly answers A's question and expresses feelings.\n6.  **[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker A:** Acknowledges B's feelings and provides a natural, logical suggestion to act on them.\n7.  **[00:29 - 00:38] Speaker B:** Provides a detailed, coherent explanation for declining A's suggestion, maintaining the logical flow of B's character and situation.\n8.  **[00:38 - 00:41] Speaker A:** Directly responds to B's hesitation with encouragement and counter-arguments.\n9.  **[00:42 - 00:46] Speaker B:** Shows a plausible shift in stance while introducing a condition, which is a logical development in B's internal conflict.\n10. **[00:46 - 00:49] Speaker A:** Acknowledges B's condition and provides a time-sensitive piece of advice, still encouraging action.\n11. **[00:49 - 00:50] Speaker B:** Asks a direct, logical clarification question.\n12. **[00:50 - 00:56] Speaker A:** A's final turn gracefully circles back to an earlier, unresolved thread (the girl A pointed out). While it shifts the *immediate* focus from Janice, it's not a random jump but a deliberate re-engagement with something previously left unaddressed. This demonstrates strong conversational management and a natural recall of earlier points, which is highly consistent within a real human interaction.\n\nOverall, the dialogue maintains excellent logical consistency and topic coherence throughout. The minor topic shifts are natural and well-managed, contributing to a realistic conversational flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high.\n1.  **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The dialogue flows smoothly from one speaker to the next. The timestamps indicate rapid turn-taking, typical of a lively conversation. For example, B's \"Why?\" (0:49-0:50) is immediately followed by A's explanation (0:50-0:56), showing no hesitation.\n2.  **Overlaps:** There is one instance of overlap:\n    *   **[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B:** \"Sorry to cut you off, but I just noticed...\"\n    *   **[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A:** \"...I think I'm in lo— I'm in\"\n    The overlap occurs for 1 second (from 00:12 to 00:13). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption (\"Sorry to cut you off\"). This indicates a polite and aware interjection rather than an aggressive or prolonged overlap. According to the prompt, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this instance perfectly fits that description. It's a natural part of dynamic conversation, and B's apology mitigates any potential negative impact on fluency.\nThe overall impression is one of natural, unhindered conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--30",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Are you a social person?\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: Yes, I am an outgoing person who likes to be with a lot of different people,\n[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but when you say \"a lot of,\" do you mean you prefer large gatherings or small, close-knit groups?\n[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker B: I actually enjoy both, depending on the situation. But I was saying that I like being with a lot of friends. What about you, do you consider yourself social?\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker A: I do, but my strategy in communicating with colleagues is more focused on sincerity. I believe that building genuine\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker B: Sincerity is key, but how do you balance that with being professional, especially in difficult conversations?\n[00:33 - 00:49] Speaker A: Balancing sincerity with professionalism is definitely important. I was about to say that the most important thing in communication is your sincerity, but it's also crucial to maintain respect and understanding, particularly in challenging situations.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance throughout.\n- Speaker B's initial response directly answers Speaker A's question.\n- Speaker A's interjection at [00:04 - 00:12] is a relevant clarification question based on Speaker B's previous statement (\"a lot of\").\n- Speaker B's response at [00:12 - 00:20] answers the clarification and then logically turns the question back to Speaker A.\n- Speaker A's response at [00:20 - 00:28] answers the question and introduces a relevant concept (\"sincerity in communicating with colleagues\") that extends the idea of being social.\n- Speaker B's follow-up question at [00:27 - 00:33] directly builds on Speaker A's mention of \"sincerity,\" asking about its balance with professionalism.\n- Speaker A's final response at [00:33 - 00:49] directly addresses Speaker B's question and also smoothly concludes the thought that was interrupted earlier.\nThe conversation flows logically, with each turn building upon the previous one, maintaining topic coherence while naturally introducing new, related sub-topics.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - [00:04 - 00:05] where Speaker A jumps in on Speaker B's last word. Speaker A acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which indicates active listening and politeness, making it a natural, acceptable overlap rather than a disruptive one. It's a 1-second overlap.\n    - [00:27 - 00:28] where Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A's last word. This also appears to be a brief (1-second) and eager interjection to ask a relevant follow-up question, contributing to the dynamic nature of the conversation.\nAs per the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" Both observed overlaps are brief and appear to enhance, rather than detract from, the natural flow of the conversation, indicating active engagement.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--458",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:11] Speaker A: Hi, Tina, I've got good news. I have successfully passed the first two rounds of interview with ABC Company. They informed me to go to the final round next Monday. It looks very promising, and\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: Oh wow, that's fantastic! But I'm curious, did they give you any hints about what to expect in the final round?\n[00:17 - 00:28] Speaker A: Promising, yes! They mentioned it will be more about cultural fit and problem-solving skills. But I haven't told you the best part yet—let's just say,\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker B: Sorry, I just remembered—are you free this evening to celebrate? We could grab a drink or something.\n[00:33 - 00:39] Speaker A: Absolutely, I was just about to suggest that! Let's meet at the cafe down your office building, say 5 PM?\n[00:40 - 00:41] Speaker B: Perfect! See you then!\n[00:42 - 00:43] Speaker A: See you!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates with good news, and Speaker B responds with appropriate enthusiasm and a relevant follow-up question. Speaker A provides the requested information and attempts to continue their initial thought. Speaker B's interruption at [00:27] is a slight topic shift, but it's immediately acknowledged with \"Sorry, I just remembered\" and is directly related to the initial good news (proposing a celebration). Speaker A's quick and enthusiastic acceptance of the celebration idea (\"Absolutely, I was just about to suggest that!\") shows excellent coherence and natural progression. The subsequent turns confirm the plan, maintaining relevance until the end. There are no instances of incoherent responses or unprompted, irrelevant topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There is one brief overlap noted: Speaker B's turn starts at [00:27] while Speaker A's previous turn ends at [00:28]. This 1-second overlap is minimal and acceptable, especially given Speaker B's immediate apology (\"Sorry, I just remembered\"), which is characteristic of natural, spontaneous conversation where someone might interject with a thought. There is also a small 1-second pause between [00:32] and [00:33], which is negligible and does not disrupt the flow. There are no prolonged pauses or extended overlaps. The conversation flows very naturally, simulating a real-life interaction without any awkward breaks or prolonged silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--84343",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hey, Rianna. I'm glad you decided to come to the party tonight. It's going to be so much\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry, just wanted to say that I'm really glad you're here with me. I was a bit nervous about coming alone.\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: Of course! I said I would, didn't I? You're my friend and I want you to enjoy yourself. Let's go get something to drink, shall we?\n[00:20 - 00:21] Speaker B: Yeah, that sounds good.\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker A: Great! I'll get us some beers. You go find a seat and I'll join\n[00:24 - 00:30] Speaker B: Actually, would you mind if we grabbed something non-alcoholic instead? I'm not really in the mood for beer tonight.\n[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker A: Sure, no problem. I'll find something else. You go grab a seat, and I'll be right back.\n[00:37 - 00:37] Speaker B: Okay.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's welcome, expressing their feelings about being at the party. Speaker A then reassures B and proposes getting drinks, which Speaker B agrees to. When Speaker A specifies \"beers,\" Speaker B politely suggests a non-alcoholic alternative, which is a perfectly logical and relevant modification to the plan. Speaker A accommodates this request without issue. The conversation flows naturally, with each turn building upon the previous one, maintaining the core topic of enjoying the party and getting drinks. There are no instances of off-topic remarks, misunderstandings, or illogical jumps in the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  [00:05 - 00:06]: Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap.\n2.  [00:24 - 00:25]: Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This is also a 1-second overlap.\n\nAccording to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" Both overlaps are very brief (1 second) and appear to be natural instances of turn-taking where one speaker begins their turn slightly before the other fully completes theirs, often to interject or respond promptly. They do not seem \"prolonged\" or disruptive enough to be considered harmful. There are no noticeable long pauses between speaker turns. The conversation moves at a natural pace, indicating good interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--53233",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hi, Mom.\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Hey, what's up?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker A: Just doing some homework.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Okay, well let me know if you need any help. I'm going to start making dinner\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker A: Actually, Mom, can I talk to you for a sec?\n[00:10 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sure, what's up?\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A: I, um... I found some money in my sock drawer and I wanted to give it to you.\n[00:17 - 00:18] Speaker B: Graeme, you don't have to do that.\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker A: I know you're struggling to pay the bills and I want to help.\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker B: Thank you, honey. That's really sweet of you.\n[00:25 - 00:27] Speaker A: You're welcome. I love you, Mom.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or naturally follows from the previous turn.\n- Speaker A's initial greeting is met with a relevant \"what's up?\" by Speaker B.\n- Speaker A's response about homework is acknowledged by Speaker B, who then offers help and states their intent to make dinner, which is a natural progression.\n- Speaker A's \"can I talk to you for a sec?\" is a clear and relevant way to initiate a more serious topic, which Speaker B facilitates with \"Sure, what's up?\".\n- Speaker A's subsequent revelation about finding money and wanting to give it to Speaker B is a direct answer to \"what's up?\".\n- Speaker B's reaction (\"you don't have to do that\") is a very natural and logical response to such an unexpected offer.\n- Speaker A provides a relevant explanation for their offer (\"I know you're struggling to pay the bills and I want to help\"), which directly addresses Speaker B's hesitation.\n- Speaker B's final response (\"Thank you, honey. That's really sweet of you.\") and Speaker A's closing (\"You're welcome. I love you, Mom.\") provide a coherent and emotionally consistent conclusion to the interaction.\nThe topic coheres perfectly throughout, shifting smoothly from casual greeting to a more serious, heartfelt conversation without any tangents or non-sequiturs.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses that disrupt the flow of conversation. The turns generally follow each other promptly.\nThere is one brief overlap:\n- [00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Okay, well let me know if you need any help. I'm going to start making dinner\n- [00:07 - 00:10] Speaker A: Actually, Mom, can I talk to you for a sec?\nThis 1-second overlap (from 00:07 to 00:08) is brief and falls under the \"acceptable\" category as per the instructions. It represents Speaker A interjecting naturally as Speaker B is finishing their thought, which is common in fluid, natural conversation, especially when one speaker wishes to quickly bring up a new topic. It does not appear to be a prolonged or harmful overlapping turn. All other turn transitions are smooth, with either no gap or a very small, natural pause (e.g., 1 second between [00:01-00:02] and [00:02-00:04], or [00:11] and [00:12-00:17]).\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--62512",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: What the hell happened? My brand new car! You ruined it!\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: I'm so sorry, Aurora. I didn't see you coming. I'll pay to have it fixed, I really didn't\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A: Do you even realize what you've done? This isn't just about money! It's my dream car, and now it's completely ruined!\n[00:16 - 00:30] Speaker B: I understand how you feel, but like I said, I'll pay to have it fixed. It won't be like new again, but it will be close enough. And if it makes you feel any better, I'll get my insurance company to cover the repairs as well. So in the end, you won't have to spend any of\n[00:29 - 00:36] Speaker A: That doesn't make me feel any better! This was my pride and joy, and now it's gone because of you!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's initial outburst is met with an apology and a proposed solution by Speaker B. Speaker A then clarifies that the issue isn't just financial, which Speaker B acknowledges before reiterating and expanding on the solution. Speaker A's final response directly addresses and rejects Speaker B's attempts at reassurance, maintaining focus on the emotional impact. The conversation flows logically, with each turn building upon the previous one, and the topic of the car damage, blame, and compensation/emotional impact is consistently maintained. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or illogical jumps in the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is also very good, especially considering the emotional context of the dialogue. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  [00:08 - 00:09] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B. Speaker B is cut off mid-sentence (\"I really didn't\") by Speaker A's impassioned interjection. This overlap is approximately 1 second.\n2.  [00:29 - 00:30] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B. Speaker B is again cut off mid-sentence (\"spend any of\") as Speaker A immediately rejects the reassurance. This overlap is also approximately 1 second.\n\nThese overlaps are brief and indicate a natural, albeit emotionally charged, conversation where speakers are eager to express themselves or respond immediately. They are not \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" but rather brief interjections consistent with the heated nature of the exchange. There are no long pauses detected between turns. The rapid turn-taking contributes to the sense of immediacy and engagement in the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--47215",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: It's so good to see you, Dad. I've missed you so much.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: I've missed you too, sweetheart. How have you been?\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: I'm doing well. School is keeping me busy, but I like it. And I've made some great friends here.\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker B: That's terrific! I'm glad to hear you're happy and I was\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: Sorry, Dad, I just wanted to ask—how's Mom been doing? I haven't talked to her in a few days.\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B: She's doing well, just busy with work as usual. But we both miss you a lot. Now, about your friends, you were saying you've made some great ones?\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker A: Yeah, I have. They're really supportive and fun to be around. We hang out a lot after classes.\n[00:36 - 00:40] Speaker B: That's wonderful to hear. It's important to have good friends when you're away from home.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one. Speaker A's initial responses about school and friends are pertinent to Speaker B's inquiry about their well-being. Although Speaker A interrupts to ask about Mom, this is acknowledged with an apology (\"Sorry, Dad, I just wanted to ask—\"), making the topic shift logically consistent within a family conversation context. Speaker B handles this shift by providing a relevant answer about Mom, and then skillfully steers the conversation back to the previous topic of friends (\"Now, about your friends, you were saying you've made some great ones?\"). This demonstrates active conversational management and ensures coherence rather than an abrupt or irrelevant jump. Speaker A then seamlessly picks up on this re-directed topic. Overall, the content flows naturally and logically.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is very good. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns; the gaps are consistently brief (1 second or less), which is natural for a smooth conversation. The only overlap occurs between [00:15 - 00:16], where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing. This is a 1-second overlap. The prompt states that \"brief overlaps... are acceptable.\" This specific overlap is not only brief but also accompanied by Speaker A's apology and explanation, indicating a polite interruption rather than a disruptive one. It enhances the naturalness of the conversation rather than hindering it. There are no signs of extended or harmful overlapping turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--97600",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: What do you think about the current state of the economy?\n[00:03 - 00:18] Speaker B: Well, it's definitely not in the best shape that it has been in recent years. There are a lot of factors contributing to this, including political instability and trade disputes. It's difficult to say how things will improve in the short term, but we're hopeful that things will eventually recover as\n[00:17 - 00:27] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but do you think the political instability is the biggest factor affecting the economy right now? Or are there other issues that are just as significant?\n[00:27 - 00:39] Speaker B: Political instability is certainly a major factor, but I think trade disputes and global market fluctuations are just as critical. However, I was also going to mention the impact of consumer confidence, which has been\n[00:38 - 00:47] Speaker A: Oh, consumer confidence! That's a great point. Do you think that improving consumer confidence could be a key to turning things around?\n[00:47 - 00:56] Speaker B: Yes, if consumer confidence improves, it could definitely help stabilize the economy. People are more likely to spend and invest when they feel secure about the future.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's initial question about the economy is directly addressed by Speaker B, who provides contributing factors. Speaker A then skillfully narrows down one of these factors (political instability) and asks for clarification, demonstrating active listening and topic coherence. Speaker B responds by comparing the significance of different factors and introduces a new one (consumer confidence). Speaker A immediately picks up on this new point, validates it, and asks a relevant follow-up question. Speaker B then provides a clear and logical explanation. The conversation consistently stays on topic, with each speaker building on the previous turn, ensuring a coherent and meaningful exchange.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally very good.\n**Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's first turn and Speaker B's response ([00:02 - 00:03]), which is a natural and acceptable pause. All other transitions between turns are immediate, contributing to a fluid conversation.\n**Overlaps:** There are two instances of 1-second overlaps:\n1.  [00:17 - 00:18]: Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B. Speaker A explicitly says, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and makes the overlap less jarring, suggesting an eagerness to engage rather than a disruption.\n2.  [00:38 - 00:39]: Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B. In this instance, Speaker A interjects with \"Oh, consumer confidence!\" just as Speaker B mentions it, demonstrating active listening and enthusiasm.\n\nWhile these are overlaps that cut off the preceding speaker, they are brief (1 second each) and do not qualify as \"extended overlaps\" that would significantly harm the conversation flow. They contribute to a dynamic and engaged conversational style rather than indicating a lack of fluency or awkwardness. The dialogue feels natural and lively.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--129525",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, Edson. How are you feeling today?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: I'm feeling okay. I have a fever, a headache, and a sore throat that's\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Sorry, before you continue, I just want to make sure—how long have you had these symptoms?\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: It started yesterday evening. The sore throat is the worst, but the fever and headache aren't helping either.\n[00:18 - 00:22] Speaker A: Let me take a look. Do you mind if I check your temperature?\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker B: No, that's fine.\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: Your temperature is 102 degrees Fahrenheit. You have a fever.\n[00:29 - 00:31] Speaker B: Okay. What can I do to make it go down?\n[00:32 - 00:39] Speaker A: Well, you could take some ibuprofen or acetaminophen to help reduce the fever. Are you experiencing any other symptoms?\n[00:39 - 00:41] Speaker B: Just the headache and sore throat.\n[00:41 - 00:48] Speaker A: The headache and sore throat are probably from the fever as well. Is there anything else I can do for your comfort,\n[00:47 - 00:50] Speaker B: Actually, should I be concerned about dehydration with this fever?\n[00:51 - 01:00] Speaker A: That's a good point. Yes, make sure you're drinking plenty of fluids, especially water. Staying hydrated is important. Anything else on your mind?\n[01:01 - 01:04] Speaker B: No, I think that's it for now. Thanks, Marcelino.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and topic coherence. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining the central topic of Speaker B's health symptoms and the doctor's (Speaker A's) assessment and advice.\n\n*   **Speaker A** initiates the conversation with a greeting and inquiry about well-being, which Speaker B addresses directly.\n*   When Speaker B lists symptoms, **Speaker A** interrupts to ask a crucial clarifying question about symptom duration, demonstrating active listening and the need for medical history.\n*   **Speaker B** provides a clear answer, and **Speaker A** proceeds with a relevant diagnostic action (checking temperature).\n*   Upon diagnosis, **Speaker B** asks for a solution, to which **Speaker A** provides appropriate medical advice and follows up with a relevant question about other symptoms.\n*   **Speaker B** answers directly, and **Speaker A** continues to explain the likely cause of those symptoms.\n*   **Speaker B** introduces a new, but highly relevant, concern (dehydration), demonstrating engagement and proactive health management.\n*   **Speaker A** validates this concern and provides further pertinent advice, concluding by checking for any remaining questions.\n*   **Speaker B** gracefully concludes the interaction.\n\nThere are no instances of misunderstandings, off-topic remarks, or irrelevant questions/answers. The conversation flows naturally from inquiry to diagnosis to advice, all coherent with the medical consultation context.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would disrupt the flow or clarity of the conversation.\n\n*   **Overlaps:**\n    *   `[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A:` overlaps briefly (1 second) with `[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B:`. Speaker A explicitly states, \"Sorry, before you continue,\" indicating a polite and functional interruption for a clarifying question, which is a natural aspect of fluent conversation, especially in a diagnostic context.\n    *   `[00:18 - 00:22] Speaker A:` starts precisely as `[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B:` finishes, indicating a smooth, almost immediate turn-taking. This is not an extended overlap.\n    *   `[00:47 - 00:50] Speaker B:` overlaps briefly (1 second) with `[00:41 - 00:48] Speaker A:`. Speaker B's interjection of a relevant and pressing question (\"Actually, should I be concerned...\") is natural for someone seeking medical advice and occurs as Speaker A's sentence trails off. This is a minor, functionally appropriate overlap.\n\n*   **Pauses:**\n    *   All pauses between turns are 1 second or less, which are very brief and natural, allowing for processing and turn-taking without feeling awkward or prolonged. Examples include the 1-second pause between 0:02 and 0:03, 0:12 and 0:13, and 0:50 and 0:51. Many turns start immediately after the previous speaker finishes.\n\nThe dialogue proceeds at a natural and comfortable pace, with brief, purposeful overlaps that enhance the conversational flow rather than hindering it.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--44162",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: 911, what's your emergency?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Hi, Abdoulaye. What's going on?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm not sure. I think my neighbor's house is on fire.\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: Okay, let me dispatch a fire truck to your location. Are you near the main road\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I can see flames now! They're getting bigger.\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B: Okay, stay on the line with me until they arrive. Are you across the street?\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm across the street from it.\n[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker B: All right. So, Abdoulaye, what do you do for a living?\n[00:30 - 00:31] Speaker A: I'm a carpenter.\n[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker B: That's cool. I've always wanted to learn some\n[00:33 - 00:35] Speaker A: Wait, I see the fire truck coming now!\n[00:36 - 00:39] Speaker B: Great, just stay safe and let them handle it.\n[00:39 - 00:41] Speaker A: Will do. Thanks for your help.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance and logical consistency, particularly given the presumed context of a 911 emergency call.\n\n1.  **Role Confusion/Misattribution:** The very first turn, \"[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: 911, what's your emergency?\", is spoken by \"Speaker A\". In a typical 911 call, this would be the dispatcher's line. However, the subsequent turns suggest \"Speaker A\" is the person reporting the emergency (the caller). If Speaker A is the caller, this first line is completely illogical and inconsistent with the role. If Speaker A is the dispatcher, then their third turn (\"[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm not sure. I think my neighbor's house is on fire.\") is illogical as they would be taking the emergency, not reporting their own. This fundamental role confusion severely impacts logical consistency from the outset. For the purpose of the rest of the evaluation, I will assume Speaker A is intended to be the caller reporting the emergency, making the first line a significant error.\n2.  **Inappropriate Topic Shift:** The most glaring issue occurs at [00:26 - 00:29] when Speaker B (the dispatcher) asks, \"All right. So, Abdoulaye, what do you do for a living?\" This question is entirely irrelevant, unprofessional, and inappropriate for a 911 dispatcher to ask a caller during an active emergency (a house fire). This completely breaks topic coherence and logical consistency within the emergency scenario. The subsequent exchange about carpentry further entrenches this irrelevant topic, even though Speaker A is just responding to Speaker B's lead.\n3.  **Informal/Unusual Language:** Speaker B's initial greeting, \"Hi, Abdoulaye. What's going on?\" [00:03 - 00:05], is also unusually informal for a 911 dispatcher, implying prior knowledge of the caller's name or being given it, and \"What's going on?\" is less precise than asking for the nature of the emergency.\n\nThese points demonstrate significant issues in logical consistency and topic coherence, primarily driven by Speaker B's irrelevant questioning and the initial role confusion.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with natural pacing and appropriate handling of overlaps.\n\n1.  **Pauses:** There are no extended long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses that do occur (e.g., 1 second at [00:03] and [00:10], 2 seconds at [00:36]) are brief and natural, allowing for processing or a slight beat before the next speaker.\n2.  **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps:\n    *   [00:13 - 00:14] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B for one second. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" and the content (\"I can see flames now! They're getting bigger.\") is urgent, making the interruption contextually appropriate and natural in an emergency.\n    *   [00:33 - 00:34] Speaker A again overlaps Speaker B for one second. This interruption (\"Wait, I see the fire truck coming now!\") is also urgent and signals a new development, making it a natural and acceptable brief overlap in a dynamic conversation.\n\nBoth overlaps are short and justified by the context of an urgent situation. Therefore, interactional fluency is appropriate and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--128331",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: You can take a taxi, but it might be a bit\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: Actually, I prefer walking if it's not too far. How long would that take?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: It should only take you about 10 minutes or so.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: Alright, I'll head over there now. Thanks for the help!\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker A: No problem. Have a good day!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **Speaker A's initial turn** sets up a context for travel advice.\n2.  **Speaker B's response** directly addresses this by stating a preference (\"I prefer walking\") and asking a relevant follow-up question based on that preference (\"How long would that take?\"), showing clear topic coherence.\n3.  **Speaker A's subsequent turn** provides a direct and concise answer to Speaker B's question.\n4.  **Speaker B's concluding turn** acknowledges the information, expresses intent based on it, and offers gratitude, which is a logical continuation and conclusion to the interaction.\n5.  **Speaker A's final remark** is a polite and appropriate closing.\nAll turns are logically connected, maintain the topic of travel time, and contribute meaningfully to the conversation's flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent fluency with only minor, natural conversational elements that do not hinder understanding or flow.\n1.  There is a brief overlap between Speaker A's first turn (ending at 00:02) and Speaker B's first turn (starting at 00:01). This is a natural, very short overlap (approximately 1 second) where Speaker B begins speaking as Speaker A is finishing, common in fluid conversations and indicating attentiveness rather than interruption. It is well within the acceptable range for brief overlaps.\n2.  There is a very short pause (1 second) between Speaker A's second turn (ending at 00:08) and Speaker B's second turn (starting at 00:09). This is a small, natural pause, allowing for processing and turn-taking without being prolonged or awkward.\nNo prolonged pauses or extended overlapping turns are detected. The conversation proceeds smoothly and naturally.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--9",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Steven, I need badly your help.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: What's the matter?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: My wife has found that I have an affair with my secretary, and now she is going to leave me.\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: Wait, she already knows? How did she find out?\n[00:12 - 00:22] Speaker A: Yes, she found out, and now she wants a divorce. I know I was wrong, but the affair only lasted for two months. I still love my wife, and I couldn't live without her.\n[00:23 - 00:32] Speaker B: I understand the gravity of the situation. I will try my best to persuade her to reconsider the divorce. But are you sure that from now on you will be faithful to her forever?\n[00:32 - 00:38] Speaker A: Absolutely, I swear I will. But I didn't get to explain how she found out and how\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker B: Right, but before we get into that, have you thought about how you're going to prove your commitment to her going forward?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building upon the established context.\n*   Speaker A's initial plea for help is met with Speaker B's direct question, \"What's the matter?\".\n*   Speaker A's explanation of the affair and impending divorce is directly addressed by Speaker B's clarifying questions (\"Wait, she already knows? How did she find out?\").\n*   Speaker A provides further details and emotional context, which Speaker B acknowledges before offering support and posing a crucial question about future faithfulness.\n*   Speaker A responds directly to the question about faithfulness (\"Absolutely, I swear I will\") and attempts to return to a previous point.\n*   Speaker B, while acknowledging Speaker A's attempt to elaborate, prioritizes the more immediate and pressing issue of proving commitment, maintaining the conversation's focus on solutions and the severity of the situation.\nThe topic remains consistently focused on the affair, the marital crisis, and potential reconciliation throughout the interaction. There are no irrelevant or illogical contributions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n*   **Pauses:** All pauses between turns are brief (0-1 second). For example, Speaker B's turn at [00:02] starts immediately after Speaker A's, and the subsequent turns consistently show minimal gaps (1 second at [00:04], [00:12], [00:23]). These short pauses are natural and do not disrupt the flow of conversation.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    *   [00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A for 1 second ([00:08 - 00:09]). This indicates active listening and eagerness to clarify.\n    *   [00:37 - 00:42] Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A for 1 second ([00:37 - 00:38]). This is also a natural conversational dynamic where one speaker interjects to redirect or emphasize a point.\nBoth overlaps are short and do not appear to hinder comprehension or indicate a breakdown in turn-taking. They contribute to the natural, dynamic feel of the conversation rather than being prolonged or harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--508",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hi, Bob!\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Hello, Alice.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker A: Have you ever heard of basket making?\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: Oh, I think I remember reading something about that.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: Basket making is a type of weaving. I am trying to learn some\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: Oh, is that right? How did you get interested in basket making?\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker A: I saw some beautiful handmade baskets at a local fair. I wouldn't really know how to choose the\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: Maybe you could take a class or find a tutorial online. Have you thought about that?\n[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker A: Yeah, I've never really tried it before either. I might have to look it up.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance throughout the dialogue is excellent.\n- Speaker B's initial greeting is appropriate.\n- Speaker B responds directly to Speaker A's introduction of \"basket making\" by acknowledging it and then asking a relevant follow-up question (\"How did you get interested in basket making?\").\n- Speaker A provides a direct and logical answer to Speaker B's question.\n- Speaker B then offers relevant suggestions based on Speaker A's expressed difficulty (\"I wouldn't really know how to choose the\").\n- Speaker A concludes by responding to the suggestions and indicating intent.\nThe conversation flows logically, maintains topic coherence, and each turn builds naturally on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with some minor, acceptable overlaps.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - [00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B starts speaking at 00:11 while Speaker A's turn ([00:08 - 00:12]) is still ongoing, resulting in a 1-second overlap. Speaker A's sentence is cut off, which often indicates an overlap or trailing off.\n    - [00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B starts speaking at 00:19 while Speaker A's turn ([00:15 - 00:20]) is still ongoing, again resulting in a 1-second overlap. Speaker A's sentence is again cut off.\nAccording to the criteria, \"brief overlaps are acceptable.\" These 1-second overlaps are brief and do not significantly disrupt the flow or understanding of the conversation. They appear to be natural instances of turn-taking where one speaker begins as the other trails off.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--366",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Have you gone bowling before?\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: No. Could you tell me something more about it? I want to play well.\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: There are 10 frames in a bowling game. Each player is allowed to bowl two balls in each frame, unless\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker B: Wait, you just said 10 rounds. Are 'rounds' and 'frames' the same thing?\n[00:15 - 00:24] Speaker A: 'Round' and 'frame' are two different terms. I was actually about to explain that each frame consists of two attempts to knock down the pins.\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: Oh, I see. Perhaps you can tell me a little more about this.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance throughout.\n1.  Speaker B's initial response \"No. Could you tell me something more about it? I want to play well.\" directly answers Speaker A's question and logically follows up with a request for information, setting the stage for the explanation.\n2.  Speaker A's explanation of frames and balls is a direct response to B's request.\n3.  Speaker B's interjection \"Wait, you just said 10 rounds. Are 'rounds' and 'frames' the same thing?\" is highly relevant as it addresses a potential mishearing or misunderstanding of terminology, crucial for B to follow the explanation. This shows active engagement and logical processing of the information being given.\n4.  Speaker A's clarification \"Round' and 'frame' are two different terms. I was actually about to explain that each frame consists of two attempts to knock down the pins.\" directly answers B's clarification question and then continues the interrupted explanation, maintaining logical consistency and topic coherence.\n5.  Speaker B's final \"Oh, I see. Perhaps you can tell me a little more about this.\" indicates understanding and prompts Speaker A to continue, keeping the conversation on track.\nAll turns build logically on the previous one, maintaining a clear and consistent topic of explaining bowling rules.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n1.  There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. Responses are prompt and natural.\n2.  There is one brief overlap identified:\n    *   [00:11 - 00:15] Speaker B overlaps with [00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A. Speaker B starts speaking at 00:11 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:12. This is a 1-second overlap.\n    *   However, this overlap is a functional interjection for clarification (\"Wait, you just said...\"), which is a common and natural aspect of conversation, especially when seeking immediate understanding during an explanation. It is not prolonged or disruptive but rather indicates active listening and engagement. As per the instructions, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this falls into that category. It does not hinder the flow or understanding of the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--42",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Uhg! And this sweater from my aunt? Isn't it kind of\n[00:02 - 00:08] Speaker B: Sorry, but can we speed this up? The game's getting intense, and I really don't want to miss anything.\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: I guess. Are you even listening? I'm trying to have a conversation with you.\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: And I'm trying to watch the game, but you're yapping on about your new clothes!\n[00:18 - 00:26] Speaker A: Well, I have to decide which gifts to keep and which to exchange for better ones when I go to the Boxing Day sales this weekend. I\n[00:25 - 00:33] Speaker B: Wait, you're going to the sales this afternoon? Can you at least try to make this quick? It's the third quarter, and you've been blabbering on since the first!\n[00:33 - 00:42] Speaker A: Oh, your precious game. You watch the same game every year, and each year your beloved hometown team loses by at least three goals!\n[00:42 - 00:50] Speaker B: Oh no you didn't. You didn't just insult the Sals-bury Seals, did you? Why don't you just... just go and return all of those stupid clothes and not come back until the sales are over?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker A's utterances consistently revolve around their new clothes/gifts and the upcoming Boxing Day sales, expressing their desire to discuss this topic. Speaker B's responses are equally relevant to their goal of watching a game undisturbed and expressing their annoyance with Speaker A's conversation. The logical consistency is maintained throughout, as each speaker's turn is a direct reaction or continuation of the ongoing conflict. For instance, Speaker B's interruptions and impatience are direct responses to Speaker A's attempts to initiate conversation. Similarly, Speaker A's insult about Speaker B's team is a direct reaction to Speaker B's dismissiveness. The topic coherence is also evident, even though the topics (clothes vs. game) are in conflict, their interplay drives the narrative forward logically.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high. The transcript shows several brief overlaps (e.g., [00:02 - 00:03] and [00:25 - 00:26]) and short pauses (e.g., [00:17 - 00:18]). These overlaps are not \"extended\" but rather brief interruptions, which are highly characteristic of a natural, especially an argumentative or impatient, conversation. Speaker B's interruptions indicate their growing frustration and desire to end the conversation quickly, adding realism to the dialogue. The pauses are also brief and natural, allowing for a slight breath or reaction time. There are no prolonged pauses or extended overlaps that would disrupt the flow or make the conversation feel unnatural or stilted. The pacing reflects the rising tension between the speakers.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--136",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hello, Ben. You're getting ready for tomorrow's lessons, aren't you?\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: Yes, but I'm a bit nervous. I have no idea what'll happen in class and how I'll get along with my classmates and\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but I think everyone feels that way on their first day. Just take it easy, and you'll make a lot of friends very soon.\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker B: Thank you. I'll try my best to get used to my new school life as soon as possible. By the way, what time does the first class begin?\n[00:25 - 00:33] Speaker A: At 8 o'clock. But before that we have 10 minutes to hand in homework and then 20 minutes for morning exercises, so\n[00:33 - 00:36] Speaker B: Oh, so we must get to school before 7:30, right?\n[00:36 - 00:43] Speaker A: Right. But I was going to say, morning reading is pretty important, so it's good to be punctual.\n[00:43 - 00:46] Speaker B: Got it. How long does each class last?\n[00:46 - 00:50] Speaker A: 45 minutes, I think, with a 10 or 15 minutes' break.\n[00:51 - 00:55] Speaker B: Well, I hear that lunchtime is nearly 12 o'clock and I'll be starving by then.\n[00:55 - 01:00] Speaker A: Don't worry. During the break after the second class, we can buy something to eat.\n[01:00 - 01:01] Speaker B: That's good.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate excellent relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates a natural conversation, and Speaker B's initial response directly addresses the prompt. When Speaker B expresses nervousness, Speaker A provides empathetic reassurance. The conversation then smoothly transitions to practical aspects of school life, such as class times, duration, and breaks. Speaker B's questions are always logical follow-ups based on the information provided by Speaker A, and Speaker A's answers are direct, informative, and address Speaker B's concerns. For example, Speaker B's deduction about the arrival time (7:30) is a logical inference from Speaker A's prior explanation of pre-class activities. The final exchange about lunchtime concerns and Speaker A's solution also showcases strong logical consistency and problem-solving within the conversation. There are no irrelevant tangents or abrupt topic shifts; the conversation remains coherent and focused on the theme of starting school.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good. There are a couple of instances of brief overlaps, but these are handled naturally and do not disrupt the flow.\n1.  **[00:09 - 00:10] Overlap:** Speaker A cuts in on Speaker B. Speaker A immediately acknowledges this with \"Sorry to cut in,\" which makes the overlap feel natural and polite rather than disruptive. This kind of brief, apologetic interruption is common in natural conversation, especially when offering reassurance.\n2.  **[00:33 - 00:36] Overlap:** Speaker B cuts in on Speaker A. This is a very brief overlap where Speaker B is clarifying an understanding based on what Speaker A was saying. Speaker A then picks up their thought smoothly with \"Right. But I was going to say,\" indicating that the interruption was minor and did not cause confusion or a breakdown in communication.\nThere are no long pauses between turns. The turn-taking is swift and responsive, contributing to a dynamic and natural conversational rhythm. The brief overlaps are functional, indicating active listening and engagement, rather than being prolonged or harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--136609",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: What the hell was that noise? It sounded like something hit the window or\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: I don't know, but it scared the crap out of me!\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Nakiyah, go check the front door and see if anything is there. I'll check the back door\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: Wait, are you sure it's safe to split up? Maybe we should stay together and just call 911 right now.\n[00:17 - 00:28] Speaker A: You're right, let's stick together and call 911 immediately. There's something out there! I heard it moving around in the bushes near the back door.\n[00:28 - 00:30] Speaker B: Oh my God! What do you think it is?\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker A: I don't know, but we need to call 911 and get out of here!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are consistently relevant and logically coherent.\n*   Speaker B's initial response (\"I don't know, but it scared the crap out of me!\") directly addresses Speaker A's question about the noise and expresses a natural reaction.\n*   Speaker A's suggestion to split up to check the doors is a logical (though potentially risky) immediate reaction to an unknown disturbance.\n*   Speaker B's counter-proposal (\"Wait, are you sure it's safe to split up? Maybe we should stay together and just call 911 right now.\") demonstrates good logical thinking, prioritizing safety and offering a more sensible alternative.\n*   Speaker A's immediate agreement (\"You're right, let's stick together and call 911 immediately.\") shows responsiveness and an appropriate change of plan based on valid input. The added information about hearing movement further escalates the situation logically.\n*   Speaker B's follow-up question (\"Oh my God! What do you think it is?\") is a natural emotional response and an attempt to understand the new information.\n*   Speaker A's final statement (\"I don't know, but we need to call 911 and get out of here!\") reinforces the agreed-upon action and the urgency of the situation.\nThe topic remains consistent throughout, evolving from identifying a noise to reacting to a potential threat and planning emergency action. There are no irrelevant tangents or illogical jumps.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps:\n    *   [00:03 - 00:04]: Speaker A's \"or\" overlaps with Speaker B's \"I don't know\". This is a very short, natural overlap, indicating a quick reaction from Speaker B, common in dynamic conversation.\n    *   [00:11 - 00:12]: Speaker A's \"back door\" overlaps with Speaker B's \"Wait\". Again, this is a brief and natural interjection, showing Speaker B's immediate concern and desire to speak.\n    Neither of these overlaps is prolonged or disruptive; they contribute to the naturalness of the exchange.\n*   **Pauses:** There is one short pause:\n    *   [00:30 - 00:31]: A 1-second pause between Speaker B's question and Speaker A's response. This is a very short and natural pause, perhaps for thought or emphasis, and does not indicate a breakdown in fluency.\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would hinder the flow of the conversation. Turn-taking is smooth and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--159",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: You're going to set up your own law office, aren't you?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: Yes. After so many years of hard work, I'd rather I had an office of my my own,\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but do you already have a location in mind, or are you still searching for the right place?\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: I'm still searching, but I have a few options. I'll be very glad if you would help me evaluate\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker A: Of course, I'd love to help. By the way, you were saying something about the office earlier—what were you planning to say?\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: I was going to mention that I'd rather have an office of my own to reflect my personal style and work ethic.\n[00:30 - 00:34] Speaker A: That makes sense. I'd like to wish you every success in your new venture.\n[00:35 - 00:36] Speaker B: Thank you. I wish I would.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are consistently relevant and logically coherent. Speaker A demonstrates excellent active listening skills by not only following up on the initial topic (setting up an office) with a relevant question about location but also by recalling and prompting Speaker B to complete an interrupted thought (\"By the way, you were saying something about the office earlier—what were you planning to say?\"). This shows strong topic coherence and a commitment to understanding Speaker B's full message. Speaker B's responses are direct, informative, and flow logically from Speaker A's prompts. For example, B answers the location question directly and then elaborates on their initial thought when given the opportunity. The conversation progresses naturally and each turn builds upon the previous one. There are no instances of irrelevant tangents or illogical leaps in conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good. There are two brief instances of overlap ([00:06 - 00:07] and [00:17 - 00:18]). In the first instance, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the overlap with \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating politeness and awareness, which makes the overlap feel natural rather than disruptive. The second overlap is also very brief and occurs when Speaker A provides an immediate, enthusiastic response (\"Of course, I'd love to help\") to Speaker B's request for help, which is a sign of engaged listening and eagerness to assist. Neither of these are \"extended overlaps.\" There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the pauses are minimal (e.g., 1 second between 0:29 and 0:30, and between 0:34 and 0:35), which are typical and natural in conversational flow, indicating a smooth exchange without awkward silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--86222",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: What took you so long? I've been waiting for a while\n[00:01 - 00:07] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I got held up at work. But I'm here now, so let's get started.\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker A: I don't know if I can do this.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: Yes, you can. I'm here to help you.\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker A: I'm just so overwhelmed by\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: Nervous? Don't be nervous, Pharaoh. You're going to do great.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent.\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: What took you so long? I've been waiting for a while**\n    **[00:01 - 00:07] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I got held up at work. But I'm here now, so let's get started.**\n    *   Speaker B directly addresses Speaker A's question about being late and offers an explanation. The apology and suggestion to \"get started\" are logically coherent with the context of having arrived late and needing to proceed.\n2.  **[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker A: I don't know if I can do this.**\n    **[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: Yes, you can. I'm here to help you.**\n    *   Speaker B's response is a direct and encouraging counter to Speaker A's expression of doubt. The offer of help further reinforces the supportive and relevant nature of the response.\n3.  **[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker A: I'm just so overwhelmed by**\n    **[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: Nervous? Don't be nervous, Pharaoh. You're going to do great.**\n    *   Speaker B demonstrates strong understanding and active listening by accurately anticipating and completing Speaker A's thought (\"overwhelmed by Nervous?\"). This shows high logical consistency and topic coherence, as Speaker B correctly infers Speaker A's emotional state and provides targeted reassurance.\nOverall, the conversation flows naturally, with each speaker's turn building meaningfully on the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence and logical consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, characterized by natural pacing and functional overlaps.\n1.  **[00:01 - 00:02] Overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B:** Speaker B starts speaking [00:01] while Speaker A is still finishing [00:02]. This is a brief, 1-second overlap. Speaker B immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating awareness and making the overlap a natural, rather than disruptive, part of the conversation. This falls under \"brief overlaps... are acceptable.\"\n2.  **[00:12 - 00:14] Overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B:** Speaker B starts speaking [00:12] while Speaker A is still speaking [00:14]. This is a 2-second overlap, but it's a clear instance of collaborative completion where Speaker B accurately guesses Speaker A's intended word (\"Nervous?\"). This type of overlap enhances fluency by showing deep engagement and understanding, allowing the conversation to progress smoothly without a significant pause. It does not appear to be a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap.\n3.  **Pauses:** There are no long or unnatural pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and seamless, contributing to a fluid conversational rhythm. For instance, the pause between [00:11] and [00:12] is minimal and natural.\n\nBoth the overlaps and the pauses are within acceptable parameters for natural conversation and do not hinder understanding or flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--78240",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I can't find my shoes! I looked everywhere and they're nowhere to be found. I\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Hold on, before we panic, where did you last see them?\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: I don't know. I've looked everywhere! Under the bed, in the closet, in the laundry basket,\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: Wait, did you check the living room? Sometimes things get moved around there.\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: Oh, actually, I last wore them yesterday when we went to the park. I took them off in the living room, by the door.\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B: All right, let's start there then. Maybe they're just misplaced and not lost.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue exhibit excellent logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial question \"where did you last see them?\" directly addresses Speaker A's problem and sets the stage for problem-solving. Speaker A's initial \"I don't know\" is a relevant, albeit frustrated, response. Speaker B's follow-up \"Wait, did you check the living room?\" is a logical next step, offering a specific suggestion to narrow the search. Crucially, Speaker A's subsequent memory \"Oh, actually, I last wore them yesterday... I took them off in the living room, by the door\" is a breakthrough that directly builds on B's prompting and previous line of questioning. Speaker B's final response \"All right, let's start there then. Maybe they're just misplaced and not lost\" confirms understanding and proposes a logical action plan based on the new information. The entire conversation stays tightly focused on finding the shoes, with each turn contributing meaningfully to the objective. There are no irrelevant diversions or inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very high. There are two brief overlaps detected:\n- [00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B starts \"Hold on...\" while Speaker A is finishing \"...I\". This is a minor, natural overlap, indicating Speaker B is ready to interject with a helpful thought.\n- [00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B starts \"Wait, did you check...\" while Speaker A is finishing \"...laundry basket,\". This is also a brief, natural overlap, suggesting active listening and an eagerness to offer a suggestion.\nAs per the instructions, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" These overlaps are brief and do not hinder comprehension or the flow of the conversation; rather, they contribute to a natural, dynamic feel. There are no extended overlaps where speakers are talking over each other for prolonged periods, nor are there any long, unnatural pauses between speaker turns. The pacing feels natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--187",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Excuse me. What's happened? What plane takes off tonight?\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: Sorry, Madam. The airport is closed. Planes won't take off until tomorrow but we're\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: Tomorrow? But where can we stay for the night?\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: We've arranged the rooms for you in the airport hotel. Two passengers will share a room.\n[00:17 - 00:18] Speaker A: Em, that's too bad.\n[00:19 - 00:20] Speaker B: Any problem, Madam?\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker A: Yes, I have a bad habit. I can't sleep without lights on, which\n[00:24 - 00:30] Speaker B: Oh, really? Just now a lady told me she had the same habit. Perhaps you two could share a room?\n[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker A: Actually, I was going to say I can't sleep without lights on. So, that might work.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence throughout the conversation.\n-   Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's initial questions about the airport closure and flight status.\n-   Speaker A's follow-up question about accommodation is directly addressed by Speaker B.\n-   Speaker A expresses a relevant concern (\"that's too bad\"), prompting Speaker B to inquire further (\"Any problem, Madam?\").\n-   Speaker A clearly articulates her \"bad habit\" as the problem.\n-   Speaker B's suggestion to share a room with another lady having the same habit is a very logical and relevant solution, directly addressing Speaker A's implied problem without being explicitly asked for a solution.\n-   Speaker A's final response clarifies her initial thought and confirms the viability of Speaker B's suggestion.\nThere are no instances of logical inconsistency or topic deviation. The conversation flows naturally and purposefully.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n-   **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps detected:\n    -   [00:09 - 00:10] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B for 1 second. Speaker B's sentence (\"but we're\") is cut off, and Speaker A interjects with \"Tomorrow?\". This indicates a natural, eager interjection rather than a disruptive, prolonged overlap.\n    -   [00:24 - 00:25] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A for 1 second. Speaker A's sentence (\"which\") is cut off as Speaker B responds with \"Oh, really?\". Again, this is a brief, natural interjection.\nBoth overlaps are short (1 second) and do not disrupt the flow or understanding of the conversation. They fall under the \"brief overlaps... are acceptable\" category.\n-   **Pauses:** All pauses between turns are consistently short (1 second, e.g., 0:16-0:17, 0:18-0:19, 0:20-0:21, 0:30-0:31). These are natural conversational pauses and are far from being \"long pauses\" or \"prolonged\" pauses that would impede fluency.\nThe overall impression is of a smooth, natural conversation with typical brief overlaps and short pauses that enhance rather than detract from the interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--82016",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Collin. How was your night?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: It was good. I made some great tips and had a lot of fun.\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: That's great! I'm glad you had a good time. Did anything crazy happen?\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: Oh, you know. The usual. We had a few people come in who were really drunk and one guy even threw up on the floor right\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker A: Ew! That's gross! Did you have to clean it up yourself?\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker B: No, thankfully someone else handled it. But yeah, it was pretty nasty. Anyway, at least you made some money, right?\n[00:26 - 00:34] Speaker A: Yeah, I guess so. But it's not all about the money for me. I just enjoy interacting with people and making them feel welcome\n[00:33 - 00:36] Speaker B: Happy? I totally get that. It's the best part of the job, isn't it?\n[00:37 - 00:45] Speaker A: Exactly! I think that's why we make such a great team. We both care about others and want to make their experience the best it can be.\n[00:46 - 00:50] Speaker B: Absolutely. I think that's why we get along so well. We have the same values.\n[00:51 - 00:55] Speaker A: Yeah, I think you're right. So, what do you want to do today?\n[00:55 - 00:57] Speaker B: I don't know. What do you want to do?\n[00:58 - 01:03] Speaker A: Well, I was thinking maybe we could go get breakfast at Denny's and then walk around the mall for a bit.\n[01:04 - 01:06] Speaker B: That sounds like a great idea! Let's go!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance throughout. Speakers consistently acknowledge and build upon each other's previous statements, maintaining logical consistency and topic coherence.\n\n*   Speaker A's initial query about the night is directly answered by Speaker B.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up about \"crazy\" events leads to a relevant anecdote from Speaker B.\n*   Speaker A's reaction (\"Ew! That's gross!\") and subsequent question about cleanup are direct responses to Speaker B's story.\n*   Speaker B addresses the cleanup question and naturally pivots to the \"money\" aspect, which was implied by the \"tips\" mentioned earlier.\n*   Speaker A elaborates on their motivations beyond money, which Speaker B affirms and connects to a shared positive aspect of the job.\n*   The conversation then transitions smoothly to shared values and teamwork, building on their mutual understanding of job satisfaction.\n*   Finally, Speaker A initiates a new topic (\"what do you want to do today?\"), which is a common and coherent shift in a casual conversation between two people who have just discussed work and shared values. Speaker B's response (\"I don't know. What do you want to do?\") is a relevant and common way to defer to the other person in such a context, and Speaker A's subsequent suggestion is then accepted by Speaker B.\n\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses, abrupt topic shifts without a natural segue, or misunderstandings of the previous turns. The conversation flows very naturally in terms of content.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very high, demonstrating natural conversational pacing with acceptable brief pauses and short, natural overlaps.\n\n*   **Overlaps:**\n    *   `[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker A:` overlaps with `[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B:`. Speaker A starts at 00:16 while Speaker B finishes at 00:17. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A's \"Ew! That's gross!\" is a natural, emotive interjection that can occur during someone else's speech, indicating engagement rather than interruption. It's brief and not extended.\n    *   `[00:33 - 00:36] Speaker B:` overlaps with `[00:26 - 00:34] Speaker A:`. Speaker B starts at 00:33 while Speaker A finishes at 00:34. This is also a 1-second overlap. Speaker B's \"Happy? I totally get that\" indicates a quick, enthusiastic agreement and affirmation, which is very common in natural conversation. It's brief and not extended.\n\n*   **Pauses:**\n    *   There are several 1-second pauses between turns (e.g., A at 00:01, B starts at 00:02; A at 00:10, B starts at 00:11; B at 00:36, A starts at 00:37; B at 00:57, A starts at 00:58). These are short and completely natural, providing appropriate conversational rhythm without being \"long\" or \"prolonged.\"\n\nThe dialogue successfully avoids any extended overlaps or long pauses that would disrupt the flow or make the interaction feel unnatural or awkward. The brief overlaps and short pauses contribute to the naturalness of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--99545",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hi, Tracey. I was wondering if I could talk to you about investing in my startup company.\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker B: What kind of company is it?\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: It's a tech company that helps businesses save money on expenses.\n[00:11 - 00:12] Speaker B: How does it do that?\n[00:13 - 00:27] Speaker A: Well, we have a software that helps businesses track their spending and find ways to cut costs. For example, we can help businesses negotiate better rates with suppliers or find cheaper alternatives to the things they're currently spending\n[00:26 - 00:34] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but when you say \"cheaper alternatives,\" are you referring to specific categories or industries where this is most effective?\n[00:34 - 00:47] Speaker A: Yes, we focus on industries like manufacturing and retail where supply chain costs are significant. But as I was saying, we also help businesses with negotiating better rates with suppliers.\n[00:47 - 00:50] Speaker B: That sounds interesting. How much are you looking to raise?\n[00:51 - 00:53] Speaker A: We're looking to raise $1 million.\n[00:54 - 00:56] Speaker B: That's a lot of money. What do you plan on using it for?\n[00:57 - 01:08] Speaker A: The money will be used for development, marketing, and hiring. We need to hire more engineers to continue developing the software and we need to market the product so more businesses will learn about\n[01:07 - 01:14] Speaker B: Speaking of marketing, have you already identified the key channels you plan to use for this, or are you still in the planning phase?\n[01:14 - 01:25] Speaker A: We've identified some key channels like digital marketing and partnerships with industry influencers. But, as I was saying, we need to market the product so more businesses will use it.\n[01:25 - 01:29] Speaker B: I see. And what kind of return can investors expect?\n[01:29 - 01:35] Speaker A: We project that investors will see a return of 3-5 times their investment within 5 years.\n[01:35 - 01:42] Speaker B: That's a pretty good return. I'm definitely interested in investing. Let me talk it over with my team and I'll get back to you soon.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn is logically consistent with the preceding one, demonstrating a clear understanding of the ongoing topic. The conversation flows smoothly from the initial inquiry about investing, to understanding the company's function, then to the specifics of the investment (amount, usage, expected returns). Speaker B's interruptions, while cutting into Speaker A's sentences, are highly relevant clarification questions that build directly on the immediate previous statement (e.g., \"cheaper alternatives,\" \"marketing\"). Speaker A's responses address these clarifications and then attempts to return to the original point, which is a very natural and coherent conversational pattern. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses observed between speaker turns, indicating a natural and steady conversational pace. There are two instances of brief overlaps (around 1 second each): at [00:26] where Speaker B cuts in, and at [01:07] where Speaker B again interjects. These are considered brief and acceptable according to the criteria. In the first instance, Speaker B explicitly says \"Sorry to cut in,\" which acknowledges the overlap and maintains politeness and naturalness. In both cases, the overlaps do not disrupt the flow or lead to confusion; rather, they demonstrate active listening and engagement. These brief overlaps are characteristic of natural, dynamic conversation and do not negatively impact the interaction's quality.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--460",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Depression is something I deal with frequently. Here's some information I found useful when I was starting my career. I hope it will help you\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but could you share a bit about how you managed to cope with it, especially in a professional setting?\n[00:13 - 00:24] Speaker A: Sure, I can share some strategies that worked for me. One important aspect is maintaining a work-life balance. However, I haven't mentioned the article yet which provides\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker B: Oh, right, the article. Could you tell me more about what it covers?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n*   Speaker A introduces a relevant topic (depression) and offers help based on personal experience.\n*   Speaker B's first response, despite being an interruption, is highly relevant, asking for personal coping strategies within the professional context, which directly follows from Speaker A's statement about \"depression\" and \"career.\" The \"Sorry to interrupt\" also signals awareness.\n*   Speaker A's second turn starts by addressing Speaker B's question but then redirects to the 'article' they initially alluded to. This is a reasonable re-framing to get back to their original point of offering *information* they found useful.\n*   Speaker B's final response perfectly picks up on Speaker A's redirection, showing excellent topic coherence by asking about the article. The conversation flows naturally, with both participants adapting to each other's contributions while maintaining a logical thread.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates good fluency.\n*   There are two instances of overlap:\n    *   The first overlap (`00:07 - 00:08` for Speaker B over Speaker A) is very brief (1 second) and immediately followed by Speaker B's apology (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating an aware and polite interruption rather than a disruptive one. This is acceptable as per the criteria \"brief overlaps... are acceptable.\"\n    *   The second overlap (`00:23 - 00:24` for Speaker B over Speaker A) is also very brief (1 second). Speaker B cuts in right as Speaker A is finishing their sentence, picking up on the last point (\"the article\"). This suggests active listening and eagerness to engage, not a hindrance to communication.\n*   There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns.\nOverall, the interactional flow feels natural and dynamic, with brief, functional overlaps that do not impede understanding or conversation progression.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--305",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: It stands 320m (1050ft) high and held the record as the world's tallest structure until the completion\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but I was wondering—do you know if it was originally meant to be a permanent structure, or was it just for the exhibition?\n[00:14 - 00:33] Speaker A: It was actually intended to be dismantled after the exhibition, but it was saved due to its usefulness as a radiotelegraph station. By the way, you asked earlier if the name is connected with someone—yes, it's named after Gustave Eiffel, the engineer whose company designed and built the tower.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker B's question (\"do you know if it was originally meant to be a permanent structure, or was it just for the exhibition?\") is highly relevant to the ongoing discussion about the structure Speaker A was describing (presumably the Eiffel Tower, given the context clues). Speaker A's first part of the response directly answers Speaker B's question regarding its permanence. Speaker A then proactively adds information about the name origin, referencing a past query (\"you asked earlier if the name is connected with someone\"). While that \"earlier\" question isn't in this specific snippet, it shows the speaker maintaining topic coherence and anticipating relevant information, contributing to the logical consistency of the broader conversation. All turns are contextually appropriate and logically follow each other.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a brief overlap of 1 second (Speaker B starts at 0:07, Speaker A finishes at 0:08). Speaker B acknowledges this overlap with \"Sorry to cut in,\" which makes it sound natural and acceptable, rather than disruptive. This falls under \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" Following this, the turn transition from Speaker B to Speaker A is immediate (Speaker B ends at 0:14, Speaker A starts at 0:14), indicating excellent, seamless interaction with no long pauses. Overall, the interaction flows very naturally.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--40885",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:09] Speaker A: Hey, friend! I was just thinking about my dream of becoming a famous actor. It's something I've always wanted to do and I really feel like it's my calling to\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but I just got excited thinking about it—have you considered starting with local theater or indie films to build your portfolio?\n[00:15 - 00:40] Speaker A: Definitely! Starting with local theater and indie films is actually part of my plan. First of all, I'm going to keep studying acting and taking classes. Then, I'll start auditioning for roles—both big and small. Even if I don't get the part, the experience will be valuable. And of course, networking is key. Getting to know other industry professionals and making connections is so important in this business.\n[00:40 - 00:47] Speaker B: Absolutely. It sounds like you have a solid plan. Just stay focused and don't give up, and you'll achieve your goal in no time!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance.\n*   **Speaker A (00:00 - 00:09):** Introduces a clear topic: their dream of becoming a famous actor and feeling it's a calling.\n*   **Speaker B (00:08 - 00:15):** Responds directly to Speaker A's ambition by offering practical, relevant advice about starting with local theater or indie films to build a portfolio. This suggestion is perfectly aligned with the stated goal.\n*   **Speaker A (00:15 - 00:40):** Acknowledges and validates Speaker B's suggestion (\"Definitely! Starting with local theater and indie films is actually part of my plan.\"). Speaker A then elaborates on their broader plan, which includes studying, auditioning, gaining experience, and networking—all highly relevant and logical steps toward an acting career. The points are coherent and build upon the initial topic.\n*   **Speaker B (00:40 - 00:47):** Provides a relevant and supportive closing, affirming Speaker A's well-thought-out plan and offering encouragement. This concludes the discussion naturally and positively.\n\nAll turns maintain logical consistency and topic coherence. There are no irrelevant digressions or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good interactional fluency, with one brief, acceptable overlap.\n*   **[00:00 - 00:09] Speaker A:** Initiates the conversation.\n*   **[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker B:** Overlaps slightly with Speaker A's tail end (00:08-00:09). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which indicates self-awareness and politeness. This is a very brief overlap (1 second) and is a natural part of conversational turn-taking, especially when someone is excited to contribute, as Speaker B states. It's not prolonged or disruptive.\n*   **[00:15 - 00:40] Speaker A:** Responds immediately after Speaker B's turn, indicating no long pause.\n*   **[00:40 - 00:47] Speaker B:** Responds immediately after Speaker A's turn, again indicating no long pause.\n\nThe overlap is brief and acknowledged, and there are no long pauses between turns. This indicates a natural and smooth flow of conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--427",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi Bob, what are you up to?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm just back from work. How are you feeling today?\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm doing well. How's the hospital?\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B: The hospital is fine. There are quite a few sick patients, but we can always use more help.\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: Yeah, of course! How are people doing with COVID?\n[00:17 - 00:21] Speaker B: The news is actually pretty grim. I don't think things are getting any better, especially\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but do you think the new variants are making things worse?\n[00:26 - 00:34] Speaker B: Absolutely, the new variants are definitely a concern. But I was saying, it's very hard on them and I'm afraid we're not going to be seeing the end of this any time soon.\n[00:35 - 00:37] Speaker A: Well it's great that you can get vaccinated though.\n[00:38 - 00:41] Speaker B: Yeah, we're really lucky! Everyone at the hospital has been working\n[00:40 - 00:45] Speaker A: Just to clarify, has everyone received both doses of the COVID vaccine?\n[00:46 - 00:49] Speaker B: Yes, everyone has received both doses of the COVID vaccine.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one, creating a natural and coherent flow.\n- Speaker B answers Speaker A's initial question about what they're up to and reciprocates with a question.\n- Speaker A responds and logically asks about the \"hospital\" given B's mention of \"work\".\n- Speaker B's description of the hospital (sick patients) naturally leads Speaker A to inquire about \"COVID\".\n- Speaker B provides a direct answer, which Speaker A follows up on with a relevant question about \"new variants\" despite the overlap.\n- Speaker B addresses the variant question and then seamlessly continues their interrupted thought.\n- Speaker A then transitions to a related positive aspect, \"vaccination,\" which is coherent with the COVID discussion.\n- Speaker B agrees, and Speaker A's clarifying question about \"doses\" is directly relevant to B's statement about \"everyone at the hospital has been working\" (implying staff).\n- Speaker B provides a clear, direct answer to the clarifying question.\nThe topic transitions are smooth and logical, moving from general greetings to work, then to healthcare, specifically COVID, and finally to vaccination within that context. There are no instances of irrelevant responses or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits very good interactional fluency with no long pauses detected between speaker turns. All pauses are brief (1 second or less), which is natural and acceptable.\n\nRegarding overlaps:\n- **[00:20 - 00:21] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B:** There is a 1-second overlap where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt.\" Despite the interruption, Speaker B successfully continues their original thought immediately after Speaker A's question, demonstrating good recovery and maintaining coherence.\n- **[00:40 - 00:41] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B:** Again, there is a 1-second overlap where Speaker A interjects with a clarifying question while Speaker B is mid-sentence. Speaker B immediately addresses Speaker A's question without apparent difficulty.\n\nAccording to the scoring criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" These 1-second overlaps, while interrupting the speaker, are brief and do not qualify as \"prolonged\" or \"harmful.\" They do not disrupt the understanding of the conversation or make it difficult to follow. Such brief interruptions are common in natural human conversation and do not represent \"significant issues\" in fluency. The speakers manage these overlaps effectively.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--61006",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I can't believe it! I won a new car!\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Congratulations, Lavinia. Which car would you like?\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: I don't know. There are so many to choose from. What do you think?\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: Well, what is your budget? We have a wide range of vehicles to fit any preferences, from\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker A: I'm not really sure. I'll have to check with my husband first.\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker B: That's understandable. Do you have any idea what type of car you're interested in? SUV, sedan, sports car?\n[00:24 - 00:36] Speaker A: I'm not really sure. My husband will probably have a better idea of that too. He's the one who does all the driving, I just sit in the passenger seat and hold his hand while he drives us around— but I\n[00:36 - 00:43] Speaker B: Actually, do you think your husband might prefer something with advanced safety features? Since he's the one driving most of the time, it could be a key factor to consider.\n[00:43 - 00:52] Speaker A: That's a good point. He does care a lot about safety. We'll definitely look into that when we come back to take a look at everything. Thanks for your help!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong **Response Relevance**.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B's questions (budget, car type, safety features) are directly aimed at helping Speaker A choose a car, which is the core topic. Speaker A's responses, while often deferring to her husband, are consistent with the narrative she establishes about him being the primary driver and decision-maker regarding cars. There are no sudden topic shifts or nonsensical replies.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The conversation consistently stays on the topic of selecting a new car, specifically the one Speaker A won. Even when Speaker A goes into a slight anecdote about her husband's driving, Speaker B skillfully picks up on the key information (\"he's the one who does all the driving\") to offer a highly relevant suggestion (safety features), thereby maintaining coherence and moving the conversation forward productively.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates good **Interactional Fluency**.\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There are two instances of overlaps:\n    *   [00:14 - 00:15] Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing (\"...from\"). This is a 1-second overlap where Speaker B is cut off.\n    *   [00:36 - 00:36] Speaker B starts speaking as Speaker A is finishing (\"...but I\"). This is a brief interruption where Speaker A is cut off mid-sentence.\n    These overlaps are brief and indicative of natural, enthusiastic conversation rather than prolonged, disruptive turn-taking issues. They do not hinder comprehension or the flow of the dialogue.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The longest pauses are 1 second ([00:02 - 00:03] and [00:05 - 00:06]), which fall under the category of \"small pauses\" and are acceptable, contributing to a natural rhythm rather than indicating hesitation or communication breakdown. Most transitions are immediate or very quick.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--126012",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I was so worried about you! I ran after you for three hours, even though I was exhausted and\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: Wait, you ran for three hours? That's incredible, but you really shouldn't push yourself like that. What if you had gotten hurt?\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker A: I just wanted to make sure you were okay.\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: Thank you, Camilo. Your devotion is one of the things I love about you.\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker A: It's just that I love you so much. I would go to\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B: I know you would do anything for me, and I appreciate it more than you know. But please, promise me you'll take care of yourself too.\n[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker A: And I love you too, Camilo. You're the best thing that's ever happened to me.\n[00:33 - 00:36] Speaker B: I'm just glad you're okay. I was really worried about you.\n[00:37 - 00:43] Speaker A: I know, and I'm sorry for making you worry. But thank you for caring so much. It means a lot to me.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong **response relevance** and **logical consistency**.\n- Speaker B's first response directly addresses Speaker A's extraordinary claim (\"ran for three hours?\") and expresses concern, which is a logical follow-up.\n- Speaker A's subsequent explanation (\"I just wanted to make sure you were okay\") directly addresses B's concern about A's self-endangerment.\n- The reciprocal expressions of affection and worry are consistent throughout the conversation, building on each other. Speaker B's repeated plea for A to take care of themself is a consistent thread.\n- Speaker A's final apology and gratitude directly acknowledge and respond to Speaker B's consistent worry, bringing a logical emotional closure to the exchange.\nThere are no irrelevant turns, no topic shifts without logical connection, and the emotional arc of the conversation (worry -> extreme action -> concern -> devotion -> reciprocal affection/worry -> resolution) is well-maintained.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent **interactional fluency**.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two instances of overlaps:\n    - `[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B:` starts at `00:04` while `Speaker A` is still speaking until `00:05`. This is a 1-second overlap.\n    - `[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B:` starts at `00:21` while `Speaker A` is still speaking until `00:22`. This is a 1-second overlap.\n    These overlaps are very brief (1 second each) and appear natural, indicative of eager participation, interjection, or even completing a thought in a close relationship. They do not constitute \"extended overlaps\" and do not disrupt the flow or understanding.\n- **Pauses:** The pauses between turns are also very brief:\n    - A 1-second pause before `Speaker A`'s turn at `00:19`.\n    - A 1-second pause before `Speaker A`'s turn at `00:37`.\n    These are short, natural hesitations or breathing pauses, not \"long pauses between speaker turns\" that would be considered harmful.\nOverall, the timing of turns is highly natural, contributing to a smooth and fluid conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--1985",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Not much. Just hanging out. What about you?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm just chillin'. Hey, I need to ask you for a quick favor,\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: Wait, before you ask, is everything okay? You sound a bit off.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: Yeah, everything's fine. I just need to ask you for a favor.\n[00:17 - 00:18] Speaker B: Sure, what is it?\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker A: I need you to loan me $100. I promise I'll pay you back as soon as possible.\n[00:24 - 00:30] Speaker B: Okay, no problem. But, are you sure $100 is enough? I mean, if you need more, I can try to help.\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker A: Thanks, I really appreciate it. $100 should be fine for now.\n[00:35 - 00:38] Speaker B: No problem, just remember to pay me back as soon as possible.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial query \"What about you?\" is a natural follow-up to Speaker A's \"Not much. Just hanging out.\"\n- Speaker B's concern \"You sound a bit off\" is a relevant reaction to Speaker A's tone when asking for a favor, showing emotional intelligence and maintaining the interaction's natural flow.\n- Speaker A consistently reiterates their need for a favor, and then directly states the request, which is followed by a reasonable offer and condition from Speaker B.\n- Speaker B's offer to provide more money (\"if you need more, I can try to help\") is a logical and compassionate response, further cementing the relevance and consistency.\n- The conversation stays on the topic of the favor/loan throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n- There are no extended overlaps indicated by the timestamps; each speaker completes their turn before the next begins.\n- The pauses between turns are very short (typically 0-1 second, as seen between 00:11-00:12, 00:16-00:17, and 00:23-00:24), which is natural and indicative of a smooth, uninterrupted conversation flow. These short pauses are well within acceptable limits and contribute to the realism of the interaction rather than hindering it.\n- The turn-taking is efficient and natural, with no awkward silences or interruptions that would disrupt the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--95217",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, I'm here to apply for a visa.\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Sure, what type of visa are you looking to\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm not really sure. I just know that I want to travel to the United States.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: Okay, well let's start with basics then. What is your full name?\n[00:13 - 00:14] Speaker A: Shaindel Gomez.\n[00:14 - 00:15] Speaker B: And where are you from?\n[00:16 - 00:17] Speaker A: Spain.\n[00:17 - 00:18] Speaker B: Do you have a passport?\n[00:19 - 00:20] Speaker A: Yes, I do.\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker B: Okay, let me see it please.\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker A: It looks like you've been to the United States before. Is that the reason\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker B: Yes, I have. I went on a vacation about 10 years ago. Does that impact my chances of getting a visa this time?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns of the dialogue demonstrate good response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A states their purpose (applying for a visa), and Speaker B responds by asking for relevant information (type of visa). Speaker A's uncertainty is a valid and coherent response. Speaker B then logically pivots to gathering basic personal information (name, origin, passport), which is appropriate for a visa application process.\n\nHowever, a critical issue arises at [00:23 - 00:27] with Speaker A's statement: \"It looks like you've been to the United States before. Is that the reason\". Based on the preceding turns where Speaker A is the applicant and Speaker B is the one processing the application (e.g., Speaker B asking for the passport), this statement from Speaker A is a significant logical and role-consistency error. The applicant (Speaker A) should not be examining the officer's (Speaker B's) travel history or asking such a question. This line completely breaks the established conversational roles and the logical flow of a visa application process. It suggests a complete misunderstanding of who is asking whom and who is providing information. Speaker B's subsequent response, \"Yes, I have...\", attempts to follow up on this illogical question, but the premise itself is flawed. This singular, major inconsistency profoundly impacts the overall logical coherence and relevance of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits generally good interactional fluency. There are brief overlaps at [00:04 - 00:05] and [00:26 - 00:27], where one speaker begins their turn slightly before the previous speaker has completely finished. These are typical of natural conversation and are explicitly noted as acceptable (\"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\"). There are no prolonged or extended overlaps that impede understanding. Similarly, there are no long pauses between speaker turns; the conversation flows smoothly without noticeable delays. Most turns follow immediately or within a fraction of a second of the preceding turn.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--465",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: What are your thoughts on the United Nations?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm not really sure. What's your view on it?\n[00:05 - 00:26] Speaker A: The UN is a global governing body that is designed to promote peace and coexistence among nations. It's also the body that holds the longest running peace keeping operations. There are 193 member states and each year, the UN General Assembly selects five new non-permanent members to serve on the Security Council for a two year term to\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but could you clarify how these non-permanent members are selected?\n[00:30 - 00:47] Speaker A: Sure, the selection is based on a regional rotation system to ensure fair representation. However, I was going to mention that the Security Council's decisions are very influential. Anyway, you mentioned climate change earlier. What's your view on the state of climate change in the world?\n[00:47 - 01:02] Speaker B: Oh, I'm also interested in climate change. The current state is quite alarming with rising global temperatures, melting ice caps, and extreme weather events becoming more frequent. The international community needs to take more aggressive actions to mitigate these effects.\n[01:03 - 01:15] Speaker A: Absolutely, and the UN plays a significant role in this through various environmental programs and agreements. Speaking of which, I didn't finish explaining the Security Council's two-year term which is\n[01:14 - 01:26] Speaker B: Right, but before we get back to that, I wanted to express how crucial it is for individual countries to also take responsibility. The UN can only do so much without the cooperation of its member states.\n[01:26 - 01:42] Speaker A: That's a valid point. Cooperation at both the international and national levels is essential for meaningful progress. Now, regarding the Security Council's term, it's designed to ensure that different countries get an opportunity to contribute to global security decisions.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A exhibits significant issues with logical consistency and topic coherence. At [00:30 - 00:47], Speaker A states, \"Anyway, you mentioned climate change earlier.\" However, Speaker B has *not* mentioned climate change earlier in the provided transcript, making this a logical inconsistency within the dialogue's presented context. This creates a jarring and unprovoked topic shift.\nFurthermore, Speaker A repeatedly tries to revert to explaining the Security Council's two-year term, first at [01:03 - 01:15] after transitioning to climate change, and then again at [01:26 - 01:42] even after Speaker B explicitly expressed a desire to elaborate on a different point (\"Right, but before we get back to that...\"). These forced and repetitive attempts to return to an earlier, unfinished point, despite the natural evolution of the conversation, significantly detract from the overall topic coherence of the interaction. It makes Speaker A's contributions feel less like a natural back-and-forth and more like a predetermined script being adhered to.\nSpeaker B, on the other hand, maintains strong response relevance. Speaker B's questions are for clarification, and their contributions build upon the immediate previous turn or politely redirect the conversation when Speaker A attempts to make an abrupt shift.\n\n**Logical Consistency and Topic Coherence Summary:**\nThe logical inconsistency regarding the unmentioned climate change reference by Speaker A is a major flaw. Speaker A's inability to gracefully transition or let go of their initial point also harms topic coherence. While Speaker B maintains good relevance, Speaker A's issues are significant enough to impact the overall quality of the interaction's coherence and consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue demonstrates generally good interactional fluency with no long pauses between turns. There are two instances of overlaps:\n1.  [00:25 - 00:30] Speaker B interrupts Speaker A with \"Sorry to interrupt, but could you clarify...\" This is a brief, polite interjection for clarification, which is a natural and acceptable conversational behavior. It is not prolonged or disruptive in a negative sense.\n2.  [01:14 - 01:26] Speaker B interjects over Speaker A with \"Right, but before we get back to that, I wanted to express...\" This is also a brief overlap, serving to politely redirect the conversation and prevent Speaker A from switching topics again. Similar to the first, this is a functional and acceptable part of dynamic conversation, not an extended, disruptive overlap.\n\nGiven that the instructions state \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" these overlaps fall within the acceptable range and do not indicate a significant issue with interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--121",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Have you given the puppies food yet?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Of course. I fed them today.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: Good job! Please give them a bath later on to make\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Oh, speaking of baths, do we have enough shampoo left for them?\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker A: Yes, we do. But don't forget that they have a vet appointment this Saturday.\n[00:15 - 00:17] Speaker B: I remember. What time do they need to be there?\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker A: They need to be there at eleven in the morning. And about giving them a bath, I was saying earlier...\n[00:24 - 00:25] Speaker B: Oh right, I'll give them a bath today.\n[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker A: Thanks. I'll make sure and remember the vet appointment too.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial response \"Of course. I fed them today\" directly answers Speaker A's question. When Speaker A brings up bathing, Speaker B immediately connects to it by asking about shampoo. Speaker A then answers the shampoo question before smoothly transitioning to a related, but separate, important topic (vet appointment), which is logically connected to the care of the puppies. Speaker B follows up on the vet appointment, and Speaker A provides the requested information, then attempts to return to the interrupted bath topic. Speaker B acknowledges this and confirms the action. Finally, Speaker A concludes by acknowledging both the bath and the vet appointment. The shifts in topic are natural and coherent, characteristic of a real-life conversation where related tasks or responsibilities are discussed for a common subject (the puppies). There are no irrelevant detours or illogical statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There is one brief overlap indicated: `[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B:` starts speaking while `[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A:` is still speaking. This is a 1-second overlap ([0:06 - 0:07]). This type of brief overlap is very common and natural in conversational turn-taking, especially when one speaker interjects with a highly relevant thought or question related to what the other speaker is saying. It does not appear prolonged or disruptive. There are no indications of long pauses between speaker turns; the conversation flows smoothly from one speaker to the next without awkward silence or hesitation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--36766",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, do you need any help with that?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Oh, no, I'm fine. Thanks for asking, though.\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: Are you sure? It looks like it might be a bit much for one person.\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker B: I appreciate the offer, but I think I've got it under control. Thanks anyway.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses the previous statement, maintaining a clear topic (offer of help and its decline).\n*   Speaker A's initial offer is clear and directly responded to by Speaker B.\n*   Speaker B's first response politely declines and expresses gratitude, which is perfectly relevant.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up question (\"Are you sure?\") and justification (\"It looks like it might be a bit much...\") is a natural and relevant continuation, showing concern and gently pressing the offer, which is common in such interactions.\n*   Speaker B's final response reiterates the decline firmly but politely, acknowledging A's offer and expressing thanks again.\nThe conversation flows logically, and there are no instances of topic drift or irrelevant contributions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and natural, indicating smooth conversational flow.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap from 0:04 to 0:05, where Speaker A begins their turn (\"Are you sure?\") while Speaker B is finishing their sentence (\"...though\"). This is a very short overlap (approximately 1 second) and is characteristic of natural, engaged conversation rather than being a disruptive \"extended overlap.\" It suggests active listening and eagerness to respond, which enhances fluency rather than detracting from it. It does not hinder comprehension or turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--692",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey! How's it going?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: I'm doing great.\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm glad. I'm looking for some travel ideas - where would you suggest I go?\n[00:10 - 00:11] Speaker B: It depends on how much time you have.\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker A: I have three weeks off between now and the end of September.\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker B: Well, I would recommend you to visit New York, Washington, DC, and maybe even\n[00:19 - 00:27] Speaker A: I actually have a different opinion. How about exploring some international destinations instead? Like Europe or Asia?\n[00:27 - 00:35] Speaker B: That's a great idea too, but I think domestic travel can be equally exciting. I lived in Washington DC for three years, so it was always my favorite place.\n[00:35 - 00:37] Speaker A: Did you enjoy DC?\n[00:37 - 00:43] Speaker B: Oh yes, it's a great place to visit. I really liked being in the city. Have you been to the Smithsonian\n[00:42 - 00:48] Speaker A: Sorry, before we move on, you mentioned California earlier. Could you tell me more about what to do there?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance has significant issues.\n1.  **[00:42 - 00:48] Speaker A: Sorry, before we move on, you mentioned California earlier. Could you tell me more about what to do there?** This is a major logical inconsistency. Speaker B *never* mentioned California in the preceding turns. Speaker B only mentioned New York and Washington, DC. Speaker A is introducing information that was not previously stated, which breaks the coherence of the conversation.\n2.  While Speaker B's responses are generally relevant to Speaker A's questions (e.g., providing travel suggestions, elaborating on DC), the critical break in logical consistency comes from Speaker A's side, which impacts the overall flow of the conversation's topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency also shows significant issues due to extended overlaps.\n1.  **[00:19 - 00:27] Speaker A:** Speaker A starts speaking at 0:19 while Speaker B is still speaking at 0:20, interrupting Speaker B mid-sentence (\"...and maybe even\"). This is a clear and extended overlap, not a brief, natural one.\n2.  **[00:42 - 00:48] Speaker A:** Speaker A starts speaking at 0:42 while Speaker B is still speaking at 0:43, again interrupting Speaker B mid-sentence (\"...the Smithsonian\"). This is another clear and extended overlap.\n\nThese prolonged interruptions indicate poor turn-taking and disrupt the natural flow of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--83327",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, I'm looking for a new dress.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Great! What type of dress are you interested in?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: Actually, I want something that's flowy and makes me feel pretty.\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker B: We have a lot of great dresses that fit that description. Let me show you some of our options.\n[00:14 - 00:15] Speaker A: Ok, thanks!\n[00:16 - 00:25] Speaker B: Here's a really pretty option. It has a flattering cut and it's made with lightweight fabric, so it'll be perfect for summer. Plus, the color is really vibrant and\n[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker A: Oh, before I forget, do you have this in other colors as well?\n[00:28 - 00:37] Speaker B: Yes, we do! We have it in a few different shades. But I was just about to mention that the fabric is also really breathable, which makes it even better for warmer weather.\n[00:37 - 00:39] Speaker A: That sounds perfect! I'll try it on.\n[00:40 - 00:42] Speaker B: Great! I'll get you a fitting room.\n[00:42 - 00:43] Speaker A: Thanks.\n[00:44 - 00:45] Speaker B: How did it fit?\n[00:45 - 00:47] Speaker A: It's perfect! I love it.\n[00:47 - 00:50] Speaker B: Great! I'm so glad you found something you love.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong **Response Relevance** and **logical consistency**. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous turn, maintaining a clear and coherent conversation flow.\n\n*   Speaker B's initial question \"What type of dress are you interested in?\" is a direct and logical follow-up to Speaker A's request for a dress.\n*   Speaker A's description (\"flowy and makes me feel pretty\") is a relevant answer to Speaker B's question.\n*   Speaker B's offer to show options and subsequent description of a dress are perfectly aligned with Speaker A's stated preferences.\n*   Speaker A's interjection about other colors is relevant to the dress being discussed. Speaker B handles this interruption well by answering the question directly before continuing their previous point, demonstrating excellent topic coherence.\n*   The subsequent turns regarding trying on the dress, checking its fit, and A's positive feedback are all logically consistent steps in a retail interaction.\n\nThere are no instances of off-topic remarks, misunderstandings, or non-sequiturs. The conversation progresses smoothly towards its apparent goal (Speaker A finding a suitable dress).\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe **Interactional Fluency** of this dialogue is very good, with minimal and acceptable instances of disfluency as per the guidelines.\n\n*   There are small pauses (typically 1 second) between turns, such as `[00:02 - 00:03]` (Speaker A to B), `[00:08 - 00:09]` (Speaker A to B), `[00:13 - 00:14]` (Speaker B to A), `[00:15 - 00:16]` (Speaker A to B), `[00:39 - 00:40]` (Speaker A to B), and `[00:43 - 00:44]` (Speaker A to B). These are natural and brief, allowing for processing and turn-taking without disrupting the flow.\n*   There are two brief overlaps:\n    *   `[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A` overlaps with `[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B` by 1 second. Speaker A starts slightly before B finishes. This is a common and acceptable brief overlap, indicating eagerness or quick processing, and does not hinder understanding.\n    *   `[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker A` overlaps with `[00:16 - 00:25] Speaker B` by 1 second. Speaker A interjects (\"Oh, before I forget...\") while Speaker B is mid-sentence. This is also a brief, natural interruption that is part of dynamic conversation. Speaker B handles it well by immediately addressing A's question.\n\nNone of the overlaps are extended or prolonged, and no pauses are long enough to suggest a breakdown in communication or an unnatural delay. The dialogue flows naturally.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--67705",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I can't believe you would say something like that!\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: What? I was just kidding around.\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: It's not funny! You think it's hilarious to belittle people like that, but\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B: Shoshana, calm down. I'm sorry, okay? I didn't mean to upset you.\n[00:13 - 00:23] Speaker A: But you did! And it's not just this one instance, either. I feel like you're always making fun of me and putting me down. It hurts my feelings, and I don't know how\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker B: I get it, I really do. But can we talk about how we can move forward? I don't want to keep hurting you.\n[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker A: I just wish you could see how your words affect people. It would make things a lot easier.\n[00:34 - 00:36] Speaker B: I know. I'll try to be more aware in the future.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A expresses their hurt and frustration directly, and Speaker B consistently acknowledges these feelings, apologizes, and attempts to find a way forward. The topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on Speaker A's feelings and Speaker B's impact. Speaker A's escalation is met with de-escalation and apology from Speaker B, and the conversation progresses logically towards resolution and understanding. Each turn builds upon the previous one, maintaining a clear narrative arc.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural flow of conversation. There is one brief overlap between [00:08 - 00:09] where Speaker B begins to speak while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. However, this is a very short overlap (1 second) and is a natural occurrence in an emotionally charged discussion, where Speaker B is attempting to interject and de-escalate (\"Shoshana, calm down. I'm sorry...\"). It does not hinder comprehension or indicate a breakdown in the turn-taking system. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--54600",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Mom. I'm home from school.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Hi, Nataleigh. How was your day?\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: It was good. I got a new teacher for math and she's really patient and\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Oh, a new teacher? How do you feel about that? Is she different from your last one?\n[00:14 - 00:23] Speaker A: Yeah, she's really nice. We learned about fractions and how to add them. It was kind of confusing, but I think I understand it now.\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: That sounds like a lot of fun! Did you do anything else today?\n[00:27 - 00:35] Speaker A: No, not really. Just hanging out with friends and stuff. Hey, can I go to Sarah's house tomorrow? Her mom said it was okay as\n[00:34 - 00:39] Speaker B: Wait, did you finish all your homework? I just want to make sure you're not falling behind.\n[00:40 - 00:46] Speaker A: Oh, yeah, I finished it during study hall. So, can I go to Sarah's house tomorrow?\n[00:46 - 00:50] Speaker B: Yeah, that's fine. Just be home by dinner time, okay?\n[00:50 - 00:52] Speaker A: Okay, thanks Mom! Love you!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A's responses directly address Speaker B's questions (\"How was your day?\" -> \"It was good...new teacher\"; \"Is she different?\" -> \"Yeah, she's really nice...\"). Speaker B's questions and comments are relevant follow-ups to Speaker A's disclosures (\"Oh, a new teacher?\", \"Did you do anything else today?\"). The shift from discussing school to asking permission to go to a friend's house is a very natural progression for a parent-child conversation, and Speaker B's immediate concern about homework is a logically consistent parental response to such a request. Speaker A's re-assertion of the request after confirming homework completion further maintains coherence. The conversation flows logically from one point to the next, reflecting a natural and understanding exchange between a parent and child.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth conversational flow. Two instances of brief overlaps are present:\n1.  [00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B starts while Speaker A is finishing (1-second overlap).\n2.  [00:34 - 00:39] Speaker B starts while Speaker A is finishing (1-second overlap).\nThese are considered \"brief overlaps\" according to the guidelines and are acceptable, often occurring naturally in dynamic conversations, especially between close关系 like parent and child, where speakers anticipate each other or interject with active listening cues or urgent questions. They do not disrupt the understanding or flow of the conversation; rather, they enhance its naturalness and real-time responsiveness.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--119333",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Wow, Salwa! This is so exciting! I've always wanted to go on an adventure like this, where\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: I know! Me too! I can't believe we're finally doing it. Where are we going first?\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker A: Well, I was thinking we could start by exploring that abandoned castle over there.\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker B: Ooh, that sounds like so much fun! But wait, do you think it's safe? I mean, it's abandoned, so there could be hidden dangers, right?\n[00:21 - 00:29] Speaker A: Yeah, that's true. We should definitely be cautious. But honestly, that's part of the thrill, don't you think?\n[00:29 - 00:33] Speaker B: Absolutely! Just wanted to make sure we're prepared. Okay, let's go!\n[00:34 - 00:39] Speaker A: Okay, but be careful. There might be things in there that we're not expecting, like\n[00:38 - 00:44] Speaker B: I will, I promise. And thank you for taking me on this adventure, Salwa. I'm sure it will be a blast!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's questions directly follow Speaker A's statements (e.g., \"Where are we going first?\" after A's excitement). Speaker A's suggestions (the castle) are met with relevant concerns or enthusiasm from Speaker B, and Speaker A addresses these concerns appropriately (\"that's part of the thrill\"). The conversation flows naturally from expressing excitement about an adventure, to choosing a destination, to discussing safety, and finally to committing to the plan. There are no abrupt topic shifts or illogical replies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are brief, natural overlaps in the conversation (e.g., [00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B starting while Speaker A finishes; [00:38 - 00:44] Speaker B starting while Speaker A finishes), which are typical of engaged and enthusiastic conversation and do not disrupt the flow. These overlaps are short (1-2 seconds) and indicate active listening and anticipation rather than poor turn-taking. There are no noticeable long pauses between speaker turns, contributing to a dynamic and natural conversational rhythm. The dialogue feels spontaneous and realistic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--185",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi. May I help you?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yeah. I'd like to rent these movies.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: Uh, Romance movies!\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker B: Well. They're for my wife. She\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker A: Oh, I see. Do you have your membership card?\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: No, I don't. Uh, do I need one to rent videos here?\n[00:15 - 00:16] Speaker A: Yes, but it's free.\n[00:17 - 00:18] Speaker B: Oh, okay.\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker A: It's just a card we issue to help us keep track of video rentals. So, please fill out this membership form.\n[00:25 - 00:28] Speaker B: Okay, and how much are movie rentals anyway?\n[00:28 - 00:37] Speaker A: Well, new releases are $3.50. By the way, you mentioned the movies are for your wife—what kind of movies does\n[00:36 - 00:39] Speaker B: Actually, I was wondering, are there any discounts for multiple rentals?\n[00:40 - 00:47] Speaker A: Not for new releases, but we do have discounts for older titles. Anyway, what kind of movies does your wife like?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one or introduces a relevant new topic within the context of renting movies.\n*   Speaker B's initial request to rent movies is met with Speaker A's observation and then a relevant inquiry about a membership card, which is a necessary step for the transaction.\n*   Speaker B's questions about needing a card, rental prices, and discounts are all directly pertinent to the task at hand.\n*   Speaker A consistently provides accurate information and instructions (e.g., explaining the card, giving the price, offering membership forms).\n*   Speaker A's repeated attempts to ask about the wife's movie preferences, while slightly tangential to the immediate transaction steps (membership, payment), are still relevant in a customer service context, potentially for offering recommendations or engaging the customer. It shows an attempt to personalize the service.\nOverall, the dialogue maintains topic coherence and logical consistency throughout, fulfilling the transaction purpose.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue exhibits generally good interactional fluency, with no long pauses observed between turns.\nHowever, there are two instances of brief overlaps where one speaker cuts off the other:\n1.  At [00:07 - 00:08], Speaker B begins to explain (\"Well. They're for my wife. She\"), and Speaker A starts speaking at [00:07] (\"Oh, I see. Do you have your membership card?\"), effectively cutting off Speaker B's sentence.\n2.  At [00:36 - 00:37], Speaker A is in the middle of a question (\"what kind of movies does\"), and Speaker B interjects at [00:36] with a new question (\"Actually, I was wondering, are there any discounts for multiple rentals?\"), cutting off Speaker A.\n\nThese are brief interruptions rather than extended, prolonged overlapping turns where both speakers are talking over each other for a significant duration. While not perfectly smooth, they do not lead to confusion or require clarification, and the conversation continues coherently. The instructions state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these fall into that category, though they do indicate slight imperfections in turn-taking. There are no instances of \"prolonged pauses\" or \"extended overlaps\" that significantly disrupt the flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 4
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--578",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hello! How are you?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Doing well, thanks for asking! How's your project coming along?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: It's slow going. I just started with it and I'm\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: Is this something you've done before?\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: Yeah, I actually used to teach crochet and knit classes at the local library.\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker B: That sounds so fun! I would love to learn how to knit.\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker A: It's definitely a good skill to learn! I have a ton of yarn at home - do you think you'd like to start\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I just got really excited thinking about making scarves for all my friends!\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker A: Sure! I would love to learn how. It would be great to make scarves for all of my friends.\n[00:35 - 00:38] Speaker B: That's a great idea! Do you have any friends who knit or crochet?\n[00:38 - 00:44] Speaker A: I have two friends who do! One is currently pregnant, but I can definitely make her a scarf.\n[00:45 - 00:48] Speaker B: Well, you're on your way then. Maybe you could buy them some yarn too.\n[00:49 - 00:55] Speaker A: I was just about to say, I have a ton of yarn at home, so you can use some of mine to get started.\n[00:56 - 00:57] Speaker B: Yeah, they would love that.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains topic coherence, flowing from greetings to Speaker A's project, then to their knitting/crocheting skills, and Speaker B's interest in learning. Responses typically build on the previous turn.\n\nHowever, there is a significant logical inconsistency in Speaker A's turn at `[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker A: Sure! I would love to learn how. It would be great to make scarves for all of my friends.`. Earlier, at `[00:09 - 00:14]`, Speaker A explicitly states, \"Yeah, I actually used to teach crochet and knit classes at the local library.\" and later at `[00:18 - 00:24]` offers to help Speaker B learn because \"I have a ton of yarn at home\". For Speaker A to then say \"I would love to learn how\" completely contradicts their previously established expertise and persona. This breaks the logical consistency of the conversation and introduces confusion, as Speaker A is presented as someone who already knows how to knit/crochet. This is a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good interactional fluency. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1. `[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: Is this something you've done before?` overlaps with `[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: It's slow going. I just started with it and I'm`. This is a 1-second overlap, which is brief and can indicate active listening or eagerness to ask a clarifying question.\n2. `[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I just got really excited thinking about making scarves for all my friends!` overlaps with `[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker A: It's definitely a good skill to learn! I have a ton of yarn at home - do you think you'd like to start`. This is also a 1-second overlap and is explicitly acknowledged as an interruption by Speaker B, making it natural and acceptable within a dynamic conversation.\n\nThere are no prolonged pauses between turns; most transitions occur with 1-second gaps or brief overlaps, contributing to a natural and flowing conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--4933",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: What the hell is your problem? Why can't you just leave me alone for\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: I don't have a problem, I just wanted to talk to you.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: Well, I don't want to talk to you, so just go\n[00:08 - 00:22] Speaker B: I get that you're upset, but I really think you should hear this. Wilbur, you're a smart and talented person and I think you have a lot of potential. But if you keep pushing people away like this, you're never going to achieve anything. Just think about it, okay?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A expresses clear discomfort and a desire to end the interaction (\"What the hell is your problem? Why can't you just leave me alone for\", \"Well, I don't want to talk to you, so just go\"). Speaker B's responses directly address Speaker A's statements and emotions. Speaker B first clarifies their intent (\"I don't have a problem, I just wanted to talk to you\") and then acknowledges Speaker A's upset state before attempting to deliver a specific message (\"I get that you're upset, but I really think you should hear this...\"). The conversation maintains focus on the immediate interaction and Speaker A's character/behavior, indicating good topic coherence. The responses are relevant and contribute to the unfolding interaction, even if it's an adversarial one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pause between Speaker B's first turn and Speaker A's second turn is only 1 second (00:05 - 00:06), which is very natural. There are two instances of overlaps:\n1.  `[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: I don't have a problem, I just wanted to talk to you.` This begins at 00:03, precisely when Speaker A's `[00:00 - 00:03]` turn ends. This is a very brief overlap, essentially seamless turn-taking, and is acceptable.\n2.  `[00:08 - 00:22] Speaker B:` This begins at 00:08, while Speaker A's `[00:06 - 00:09]` turn is still ongoing, overlapping by 1 second as Speaker A finishes their sentence with \"go\". This is a brief overlap, indicating Speaker B's persistence or interruption, but it does not constitute an \"extended overlap\" that would impede communication or sound unnatural. The prompt states \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this fits that description.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking feel natural for a high-tension interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 4
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--487",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi Bob! How are you doing?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm good! The new pool table looks great!\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: I know! How long will it take you to put it [interrupt]\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to cut you off, but do you think we need any special tools to assemble it?\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: I don't think so, just the usual ones like a wrench and screwdriver. But as I was saying, how long will it take you to put it together?\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: About two hours. I don't know if I'll have time to do that today, but I'll definitely have it ready by\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: Oh, I'm really excited to play this weekend! Do you think we should invite some friends over to try it out once it's done?\n[00:32 - 00:35] Speaker B: That's a great idea! I'll definitely have it done by the weekend.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and topic coherence. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the central topic of the new pool table and its assembly.\n\n*   **[00:00 - 00:05]**: Speaker B's mention of the \"new pool table\" is a direct and relevant response to Speaker A's \"How are you doing?\", shifting the conversation naturally to a shared object of interest.\n*   **[00:05 - 00:08] & [00:07 - 00:11]**: Speaker A's question about assembly time and Speaker B's interruption about tools are both highly relevant to the topic of assembling the pool table. Speaker B's interruption, though an overlap, is topic-coherent, indicating engagement with the task at hand.\n*   **[00:12 - 00:19]**: Speaker A directly answers Speaker B's question about tools and then skillfully loops back to their original question about assembly time, maintaining the flow and coherence.\n*   **[00:19 - 00:25]**: Speaker B's answer about \"two hours\" is a direct response to Speaker A's repeated question.\n*   **[00:24 - 00:31]**: Speaker A's pivot to playing and inviting friends is a natural progression from the discussion of the pool table's assembly and readiness, focusing on the purpose of the pool table.\n*   **[00:32 - 00:35]**: Speaker B's agreement and re-affirmation of having it done by the weekend ties back directly to the discussion of using the pool table soon.\n\nThe conversation maintains a clear logical flow and stays entirely on topic, showing high quality in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates good interactional fluency, with some natural minor issues that do not significantly hinder communication.\n\n*   **[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: I know! How long will it take you to put it [interrupt]**\n*   **[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to cut you off, but do you think we need any special tools to assemble it?**\n    *   There is a clear extended overlap here (from 0:07 to 0:08 where A is interrupted). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry to cut you off\"), which makes the interaction more natural, showing awareness of conversational etiquette. While an overlap, it's quickly resolved and doesn't cause confusion. It's a natural occurrence in dynamic conversation, especially when one speaker has an urgent thought.\n*   **[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: Oh, I'm really excited to play this weekend! Do you think we should invite some friends over to try it out once it's done?**\n    *   There is another, shorter overlap from 0:24 to 0:25. Speaker A starts speaking just as Speaker B is finishing their sentence. This is a very common and natural type of brief overlap that occurs in fluid conversations, indicating active listening and anticipation to respond, rather than a significant disruption.\n\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth and continuous flow of conversation. The slight overlaps are brief and natural, typical of engaged dialogue, and do not impede understanding or the pace of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--216",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What did the doctor say?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: He said that I have been eating too more than\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but did he mention anything specific about what might be causing it?\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker B: Yes, he asked me to clean up my diet by cutting red meat. Oh, and I didn't finish earlier—he also said I've been eating too much, which is contributing to the issue.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **Speaker A's initial question** (\"What did the doctor say?\") sets a clear topic.\n2.  **Speaker B's initial, incomplete response** (\"He said that I have been eating too more than\") is directly relevant, even if truncated.\n3.  **Speaker A's follow-up question** (\"Sorry to jump in, but did he mention anything specific about what might be causing it?\") is highly relevant. It seeks elaboration on the initial (implied) diagnosis, showing active listening and a desire for more specific information about the cause. The \"Sorry to jump in\" indicates awareness of the interruption, but the question itself remains perfectly on topic.\n4.  **Speaker B's final response** (\"Yes, he asked me to clean up my diet by cutting red meat. Oh, and I didn't finish earlier—he also said I've been eating too much, which is contributing to the issue.\") is excellent in terms of relevance and coherence. It directly answers Speaker A's follow-up question (\"cutting red meat\") and then, importantly, loops back to complete the original thought that was interrupted (\"he also said I've been eating too much\"). This demonstrates strong self-correction and ensures all parts of the conversation are tied together logically.\n\nOverall, the conversation flows logically, each turn building coherently on the previous one, and demonstrating active engagement and understanding between speakers.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good, resembling natural conversation.\n1.  **Overlap:** There is a brief overlap between [00:03] and [00:04] where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still in their turn. This is a 1-second overlap. However, Speaker A immediately acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which is a common and acceptable conversational repair strategy for brief overlaps. The guidelines state, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this fits that description. It doesn't disrupt the flow negatively.\n2.  **Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected. The transitions between turns are quick and natural, maintaining a good conversational pace.\n3.  **Disfluency/Incompletion:** Speaker B's initial statement \"He said that I have been eating too more than\" is incomplete or slightly disfluent. However, Speaker B self-corrects and completes this thought later in their turn (\"Oh, and I didn't finish earlier—he also said I've been eating too much\"). This self-repair mechanism actually enhances the naturalness and fluency of the interaction, showing the speaker's ability to manage their own speech and the flow of information.\n\nThe dialogue effectively manages the brief interruption and the initial disfluency, leading to a smooth and natural conversational exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--98260",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, I like your new haircut.\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Thank you! I was getting a bit tired of my old look and\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: Oh, by the way, did you go to the same salon as last time?\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: No, I actually tried a new place this time. They suggested this style, and I'm really happy with how it turned out.\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker A: Yeah, it looks really good on you. Suits your face shape well.\n[00:20 - 00:21] Speaker B: Thanks, I'm glad you think so!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B consistently responds to Speaker A's compliments and questions about the haircut and salon with logical and coherent answers. Speaker A's follow-up questions and reinforcing compliments are directly related to Speaker B's statements. The topic of the new haircut is maintained throughout, with natural progression from the initial compliment to details about the salon and the style, and concluding with mutual satisfaction. There are no irrelevant or off-topic remarks, ensuring excellent logical consistency and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\nThere is one brief overlap detected:\n*   `[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A:` starts while `[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B:` is still speaking. This results in a 1-second overlap (from 0:04 to 0:05). This is a brief and natural overlap, where Speaker A interjects or anticipates Speaker B's closing, which is acceptable as per the guidelines (\"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\").\nPauses between turns are also brief and natural:\n*   A 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn ending at 0:08 and Speaker B's turn starting at 0:09.\n*   A 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn ending at 0:14 and Speaker A's turn starting at 0:15.\n*   A 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn ending at 0:19 and Speaker B's turn starting at 0:20.\nThese are all \"small pauses\" and do not negatively impact the flow of the conversation, aligning with the \"small pauses... are acceptable\" guideline. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--147",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: So is there any other area I should look at as well?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Yes, I'd recommend West Derby. That will be closer to your office.\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker A: That sounds good.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: Yes, and if you have children, it also has very good schools.\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker A: That's not my concern. I live on my own so I'm only looking for a cheap single room, something like a flat.\n[00:20 - 00:29] Speaker B: Umm, that may be a problem here in this area then, because there are mostly larger houses here. You'd probably be able to share one with other people who want to find a\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker A: No, I'm only interested in flats at the moment.\n[00:31 - 00:38] Speaker B: We actually have another office in South Derby, and the guy who works there is a really good friend of mine. His name is John Godfrey.\n[00:38 - 00:40] Speaker A: Could you tell me his telephone number?\n[00:40 - 00:45] Speaker B: It's 074263951.\n[00:45 - 00:51] Speaker A: Great. Is there a good time to call him? I'm here for a whole week until I have\n[00:50 - 00:56] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, just to clarify—are you only considering flats in West Derby, or would you be open to South Derby as well?\n[00:57 - 01:06] Speaker A: I'm open to South Derby too. But as I was saying, I'm here until Sunday the tenth, so I was wondering when would be a good time to call him?\n[01:06 - 01:09] Speaker B: I'm sure he'll be able to see you on Saturday.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency.\n\n1.  **Initial Goal Setting and Adaptation:** Speaker A initially asks for general areas. Speaker B suggests West Derby with a relevant reason (proximity to office). Speaker B then adds another detail (schools).\n2.  **User Constraint Introduction:** Speaker A then provides crucial clarification: they are looking for a \"cheap single room, something like a flat,\" and are not concerned about schools. This is a significant change in requirements.\n3.  **Speaker B's Adaptation:** Speaker B immediately acknowledges the problem with West Derby for these new criteria (\"that may be a problem here...mostly larger houses\"). This shows logical consistency and adaptation to the user's needs. Speaker B attempts to suggest sharing, but Speaker A promptly rejects it.\n4.  **Problem-Solving Pivot:** Understanding the specific need for a flat and the limitations of West Derby, Speaker B pivots effectively by suggesting a contact in South Derby (John Godfrey). This is a logical move to help Speaker A find suitable accommodation, even if it's not a direct listing but a lead.\n5.  **Information Exchange:** The subsequent turns are coherent: Speaker A asks for the number, Speaker B provides it. Speaker A then asks about the best time to call.\n6.  **Clarification and Persistence:** Speaker B's clarification question (\"are you only considering flats in West Derby, or would you be open to South Derby as well?\") at [00:50 - 00:56] is highly relevant, given the shift in areas discussed. Speaker A responds directly to this and then gracefully picks up their original question, showing excellent topic coherence and memory of the ongoing conversation.\n7.  **Resolution:** Speaker B provides a direct answer to the repeated question about the best time to call.\n\nOverall, the conversation flows logically, topics are coherent, and speakers adapt their responses appropriately based on new information and clarifications. There are no instances of irrelevant or inconsistent responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n1.  **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are natural and immediate, indicating a smooth conversation flow. For example, the one-second pauses between [00:08 - 00:09] and [00:12 - 00:13] are brief and acceptable, typical of natural speech.\n2.  **Overlaps:** Two brief overlaps are present, but they enhance rather than harm the fluency, reflecting natural conversational dynamics:\n    *   **[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B:** Speaker A cuts in to clarify and re-emphasize their specific need (\"No, I'm only interested in flats at the moment\") while Speaker B is still speaking about sharing options. This is a common and natural way for a speaker to assert a strong preference or correct a misunderstanding immediately. The overlap is only 1 second (B speaks till 00:29, A starts at 00:28).\n    *   **[00:50 - 00:56] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A:** Speaker B interrupts Speaker A's extended turn with a \"Sorry to jump in, just to clarify...\" This explicit acknowledgment of the interruption makes it polite and acceptable. The clarification question is crucial for the ongoing discussion about locations. The overlap is only 1 second (A speaks till 00:51, B starts at 00:50).\n\nThese overlaps are not \"prolonged\" but rather brief, functional, and reflective of an engaged, real-time conversation. They do not disrupt understanding or create awkwardness.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--2260",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:12] Speaker A: Hi, lunch lady. I was just wondering why there's never any variety in the food you serve here. It's always the same stuff every day, and it's not very good quality. Can't we have something different for a change? Maybe\n[00:11 - 00:26] Speaker B: I understand your concern, Julisa. But you see, we do our best to provide a variety of healthy food options for our students. Sometimes it's difficult to please everyone, especially with the budget and nutritional guidelines we have to follow. I'm sorry if you're not happy with what we have to offer.\n[00:27 - 00:42] Speaker A: It's not that I don't appreciate your efforts, but can't we have something different once in awhile? I'm getting really sick of eating the same thing all the time. And the quality of the food could be better too. Do you think you could do something about improving the\n[00:41 - 00:54] Speaker B: I hear you, Julisa. We can definitely look into adding more variety, though it might take some time to adjust the menu. As for the quality, I'll speak to the kitchen staff and see if there are ways we can improve it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance.\n- Speaker A initiates the conversation by expressing a clear concern about the lack of food variety and quality.\n- Speaker B's first response directly addresses Speaker A's concern, acknowledges it, provides context (budget, nutritional guidelines), and expresses understanding. This is a very relevant and empathetic reply.\n- Speaker A's second turn reiterates her point, showing she heard Speaker B's explanation but still wants action, maintaining the core topic.\n- Speaker B's final response directly acknowledges Speaker A's persistence, offers concrete steps (looking into variety, speaking to staff about quality), and thanks Speaker A for the feedback. This is a highly relevant and constructive conclusion to the exchange.\nThe conversation maintains logical consistency and topic coherence throughout all turns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction shows good fluency.\n- There are two brief overlaps identified: [00:11 - 00:12] where Speaker A's \"Maybe\" overlaps with Speaker B starting their turn, and [00:41 - 00:42] where Speaker A's \"improving the\" overlaps with Speaker B starting their turn. Both overlaps are very short (1 second each) and occur at the very end of one speaker's turn as the other begins. These are typical, natural occurrences in a conversational flow and do not indicate a disruption or miscommunication. They suggest active listening and a quick turn-taking dynamic.\n- There are no long pauses indicated between speaker turns. The turns are taken promptly, contributing to a natural and fluent conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--59",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: When she told me that she would marry no man but Dick, my heart was almost in my mouth. I\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but did you actually talk to her about why she's so set on marrying Dick? I mean, it just seems so sudden.\n[00:11 - 00:20] Speaker A: I did, but I couldn't and can't make out the reason why she would set her heart on a man like Dick. He plays the field with many girls.\n[00:20 - 00:29] Speaker B: You were scared, too? I dared not tell you my feeling when I heard that. I almost got fainted. But wait, you mentioned your heart was almost in your—what were you going to say?\n[00:29 - 00:38] Speaker A: Oh, right, my heart was almost in my mouth. I just couldn't believe what I was hearing. But Sarah says she does not care, so long as he loves her.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate excellent relevance and coherence. Each speaker builds upon the previous turn naturally. Speaker B's first interjection directly addresses Speaker A's initial statement about \"Dick.\" Speaker A then elaborates, maintaining the topic. Speaker B then shows empathy by relating their own feeling and, importantly, actively listens and brings back Speaker A's initial incomplete phrase (\"my heart was almost in my—what were you going to say?\"), which shows strong logical consistency and attention to detail from a previous turn. Speaker A's final response completes the thought and adds more context, keeping the conversation flowing coherently. There are no instances of going off-topic or illogical jumps.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good. There is only one brief overlap at [00:04 - 00:11] where Speaker B says \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating a natural, polite interjection rather than a prolonged or disruptive overlap. This type of brief overlap is acceptable and often indicates active engagement. There are no indications of long pauses between speaker turns; the timestamps show turns following each other in quick succession, contributing to a natural and dynamic conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--133604",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: What happened? I can't see.\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: You have a condition that caused blindness.\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker A: What is it?\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: It's called Leber's Hereditary Optic Neuropathy. It's a rare condition that affects the optic nerve, leading\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker A: Wait, did you say it's hereditary? Does that mean my family could be at risk too?\n[00:17 - 00:25] Speaker B: Yes, it is hereditary, and it might affect others in your family as well. But I was going to mention that it specifically impacts the optic nerve.\n[00:25 - 00:26] Speaker A: Is there a cure?\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker B: There is no known cure, but we will continue to search for one. In the meantime, you will need to learn how\n[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker A: I understand, but how do I even begin to adjust to something like this?\n[00:37 - 00:44] Speaker B: It will be a difficult process, but there are resources and support systems available to help you adapt. We'll take it one step at a time together.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B consistently provides direct and relevant answers to Speaker A's questions, moving from the initial diagnosis to specific details (condition name, hereditary nature, impact on optic nerve), and then addressing emotional and practical concerns (cure, adjustment). Speaker A's questions are also highly relevant and natural given the unfolding information, reflecting a patient's immediate concerns and need for clarification. There are no instances where speakers diverge from the topic inappropriately or provide illogical responses. The flow of information and questions is very coherent and natural for a medical consultation of this nature.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two instances of 1-second overlaps and two instances of 1-second pauses.\n1.  **Overlap [00:11 - 00:17] Speaker A over [00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B:** Speaker A begins speaking 1 second before Speaker B finishes. This is a brief and natural interruption, where Speaker A picks up on a crucial word (\"hereditary\") to ask a clarifying question immediately. This type of overlap is common in natural conversation and indicates active listening and engagement rather than disruption.\n2.  **Overlap [00:31 - 00:36] Speaker A over [00:27 - 00:32] Speaker B:** Speaker A begins speaking 1 second before Speaker B finishes. Similar to the above, this is a brief and natural reaction to the heavy information (\"no known cure\"), where Speaker A articulates their next immediate concern (\"how do I even begin to adjust\") before Speaker B completes their sentence about learning.\n3.  **Pauses:** The pauses at [00:26]-[00:27] (1 second) and [00:36]-[00:37] (1 second) are very brief. These are not \"long pauses\" but rather natural conversational hesitations that allow for processing information or formulating a response. They do not disrupt the flow or indicate awkwardness.\nThe dialogue adheres to the guideline that \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" as none of the observed instances are prolonged or harmful to the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--435",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Andrew! An...? Andrew.\n[00:02 - 00:02] Speaker B: What?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker A: Andrew.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: What? What's going on?\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker A: What happened to YOU?\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: You mean my hair? You like my hair?\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: Uh, I think you know what I mean, Andrew. Do you want me to be honest?\n[00:16 - 00:16] Speaker B: What?\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker A: Okay. Andrew. You've put on, like, a ton of weight since I saw you at Christmas time. What on earth happened to make you\n[00:23 - 00:24] Speaker B: Why are you always so blunt?\n[00:25 - 00:39] Speaker A: Well, I'm your big sister. I'm... what am I? Three years older than you, and I can be blunt if I want. Besides, you used to say stuff like that to me all of the time. You used to call me fatso all the time when I was little.\n[00:39 - 00:44] Speaker B: Oh, yeah, well, to be honest, uh..., I started changing my life.... I realized\n[00:43 - 00:46] Speaker A: Yesterday? What do you mean by that?\n[00:47 - 00:52] Speaker B: Yeah, yesterday. I started a new diet and exercise plan. But what were you going to say before?\n[00:52 - 00:58] Speaker A: Oh, I was just curious about what exactly happened during the holidays that led to this change.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\nSpeaker A initiates the conversation by trying to get Andrew's attention and then immediately brings up a change in Andrew's appearance (\"What happened to YOU?\"). Andrew's initial response about his hair might be seen as a slight deflection or misinterpretation, but it's a plausible, if evasive, answer to the question. Speaker A quickly brings the conversation back to the intended topic by prompting Andrew to be honest.\nWhen Speaker A bluntly states Andrew has gained weight, Andrew's emotional response (\"Why are you always so blunt?\") is logically consistent with being called out directly, especially by a sibling. Speaker A's subsequent justification for her bluntness, referencing their sibling relationship and past interactions, further strengthens the logical flow and adds depth to their interaction.\nAndrew then attempts to explain the change by stating he's \"started changing my life,\" which is directly relevant to Speaker A's initial concern about his appearance. Speaker A's clarifying question (\"Yesterday? What do you mean by that?\") shows active listening and maintains the topic. Andrew's detailed explanation about his diet and exercise plan, coupled with his redirecting question back to Speaker A (\"But what were you going to say before?\"), demonstrates strong coherence and a desire to address the full scope of the conversation. Speaker A's final response clarifies her original curiosity, bringing the conversation to a natural close within the established topic.\nOverall, the dialogue flows naturally with each turn building upon the previous one, even when there are minor emotional reactions or clarifications.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent, reflecting a natural and dynamic conversation between two people who seem to know each other well.\nThere are no instances of long pauses that would disrupt the flow.\nThere are a couple of brief overlaps:\n*   At [00:23 - 00:24], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A with \"Why are you always so blunt?\". This is a brief overlap (approx. 1 second) where Speaker B reacts emotionally to Speaker A's statement before Speaker A fully completes their sentence. This is a very common and natural occurrence in lively conversations and does not hinder understanding.\n*   At [00:43 - 00:46], Speaker A overlaps Speaker B with \"Yesterday? What do you mean by that?\". This is also a brief overlap (approx. 1 second) where Speaker A jumps in for clarification as soon as Speaker B makes a crucial statement (\"I started changing my life.... I realized\"). This type of overlap indicates active engagement and a desire for immediate clarity, and it does not impede the conversation's progress.\n\nBoth identified overlaps are brief and serve a communicative function (emotional reaction, clarification). They are not \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" and do not cause confusion or make the dialogue difficult to follow. The rapid turn-taking and natural interruptions contribute to the realistic and fluid feel of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--42771",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, what do you need help with?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Well, I'm working on this project for school and I'm having a lot of difficulty figuring\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: Wait, is this the project you mentioned last week? The one about space?\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: Yes, exactly! We have to create a model of the solar system.\n[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker A: That doesn't sound too difficult. I can help you with that.\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B: Thank you, Lorenza. I would really appreciate\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker A: Before you say anything else, do you already have the materials, or should we pick some up after school?\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker B: I have some, but I might need a few more things. Let's work on it after school today.\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker A: That sounds great. Thanks again for your help.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout. Speaker A promptly responds to Speaker B's need for help, and Speaker B clearly articulates the problem (school project, difficulty). The conversation seamlessly transitions from identifying the project (space model) to offering and accepting help, and then to planning the next steps (materials, working after school). Each turn builds logically on the previous one, maintaining topic coherence.\n\nThere is one minor point of awkwardness in the final turn: Speaker A says, \"Thanks again for your help.\" Given that Speaker A is the one offering help *to* Speaker B, this phrasing is slightly illogical. It would be more natural for Speaker B to thank Speaker A. However, this is a minor social inconsistency rather than a logical break in the core topic or flow of the conversation, which remains perfectly clear. It doesn't significantly detract from the overall relevance or consistency of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural and appropriate. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  `[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A:` overlaps with `[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B:` from 00:05 to 00:06 (1 second overlap). Speaker A interjects to clarify the project.\n2.  `[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker A:` overlaps with `[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B:` from 00:20 to 00:21 (1 second overlap). Speaker A interjects to ask about materials before Speaker B finishes expressing appreciation.\n\nThese are short, brief overlaps that are common in natural conversation, especially when one speaker is eager to clarify or move the conversation forward. They are not \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" and do not disrupt the flow or understanding of the dialogue.\nAll pauses between turns are 1 second or less, which are considered small and natural, contributing to the fluent and unhesitant nature of the conversation. There are no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--16686",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey, I just bought a jet ski with some of my savings. It was $2000.\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: Wow, that's a lot of money for a jet ski! Where did you get the money?\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker A: I've been saving up for a while and I finally had enough to\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B: Wait, how long have you been saving? I just want to make sure you didn't drain your entire account for this.\n[00:17 - 00:25] Speaker A: No, I've been saving for over a year, so I still have plenty left. And I paid for it in cash, no financing or anything.\n[00:25 - 00:28] Speaker B: Wow, that's a lot of money. Are you sure you can afford it?\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm fine. I have plenty of other savings that I can use if I need to\n[00:33 - 00:40] Speaker B: Sorry, but do you have any upcoming expenses you might need those savings for? Just want to make sure you're covered.\n[00:40 - 00:47] Speaker A: I appreciate the concern, but I've already accounted for my upcoming expenses. I'm being careful, don't worry.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's questions consistently follow up on Speaker A's statements, demonstrating concern for Speaker A's financial well-being after a significant purchase. Speaker A's responses directly address these concerns, providing reassurance and further details. The topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on the jet ski purchase and the implications for Speaker A's savings. There are no irrelevant turns or illogical jumps in the conversation. For example, Speaker B's progression from \"Where did you get the money?\" to \"how long have you been saving?\" to \"Are you sure you can afford it?\" to \"any upcoming expenses\" shows a logical chain of financial concern, and Speaker A's replies consistently address these specific points.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two brief overlaps identified:\n1.  [00:12 - 00:13]: Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap.\n2.  [00:33 - 00:34]: Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This is also a 1-second overlap.\n\nAccording to the instructions, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" Both identified overlaps are very brief (1 second) and do not appear to be \"prolonged\" or disruptive to the conversation. In fact, they contribute to a natural, engaged conversational flow, where Speaker B's concern leads them to interject slightly early. There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--124",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: How can we get in touch with you?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: Please call me or send e-mail. Could you please let me know when your organization can finalize the\n[00:06 - 00:16] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I just realized we haven't confirmed who exactly we should contact. Should we reach out directly to you, or is there someone else we should coordinate with?\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: You can reach out to me directly. Now, as I was saying, our organization can make a decision in about one week.\n[00:22 - 00:32] Speaker A: Got it! And I really appreciate your time and help. By the way, if we need to follow up after that week, should we still contact you via the same methods?\n[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker B: Yes, please do. See you then.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B initially provides a direct answer to how they can be contacted. Speaker A's subsequent turn, while an interruption, is highly relevant as it seeks necessary clarification on *who* specifically to contact, building on the initial 'how'. Speaker B effectively addresses this clarification and then seamlessly returns to their interrupted point (\"Now, as I was saying...\"), demonstrating excellent topic coherence and memory. Speaker A's final question about follow-up contact methods is a logical extension of the conversation, considering the timeline Speaker B provided. Speaker B's concluding response is direct and appropriate. There are no off-topic statements or abrupt shifts in topic that are not immediately addressed and integrated.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe primary point to evaluate for interactional fluency is the overlap between Speaker B's turn at [00:02 - 00:07] and Speaker A's turn at [00:06 - 00:16]. The overlap occurs for approximately 1 second (from 00:06 to 00:07). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this by saying \"Sorry to jump in,\" which indicates an awareness of the interruption. While it is an overlap, it is relatively brief and appears to be a purposeful, polite interruption for a clarification that was pertinent to the ongoing discussion about contact methods. The prompt states \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" Given its brief duration and Speaker A's immediate acknowledgment, this overlap does not appear to be \"prolonged\" or \"harmful.\" Speaker B manages the interruption well by addressing Speaker A's clarification first and then gracefully picking up their original thought. There are no indications of long pauses between speaker turns; the turn-taking seems natural and timely.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--138770",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: This is so exciting! I can't believe we found this hidden gem\n[00:02 - 00:08] Speaker B: I know! It's like we're the first people to ever find it. Do you think there might be more treasure around here?\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A: Who knows? But I bet there are some cool things to find if we keep exploring this\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: Actually, before we move on, should we mark this spot somehow? In case we need to find our way back?\n[00:18 - 00:27] Speaker A: That's a good idea. We can mark it with some rocks or something. I'm so glad we came on this adventure together. It's been so much fun.\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker B: Me too. I can't wait to see what else we can find.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn builds upon or directly addresses the preceding statement.\n- Speaker B's \"I know! It's like we're the first people to ever find it. Do you think there might be more treasure around here?\" directly responds to Speaker A's excitement about finding a \"hidden gem\" and naturally extends the theme of discovery.\n- Speaker A's \"Who knows? But I bet there are some cool things to find if we keep exploring this\" provides a direct answer to B's question about more treasure and reinforces the idea of continued exploration.\n- Speaker B's suggestion to \"mark this spot\" is a logical, practical interjection tied to the concept of moving on and exploring further, ensuring safety and recall.\n- Speaker A's \"That's a good idea. We can mark it with some rocks or something.\" confirms agreement and offers a solution, followed by a natural expression of enjoyment, linking back to the overall adventure theme.\n- Speaker B's \"Me too. I can't wait to see what else we can find.\" provides a relevant echo to A's sentiment and a forward-looking statement that ties back to the initial excitement of discovery.\nThe topic coherence is maintained throughout, evolving from initial discovery to practical considerations and concluding with shared enthusiasm.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- Overlaps: There are two brief overlaps detected:\n    - [00:02 - 00:03] Speaker A's turn (ends 00:03) and Speaker B's turn (starts 00:02). This is a 1-second overlap.\n    - [00:13 - 00:14] Speaker A's turn (ends 00:14) and Speaker B's turn (starts 00:13). This is a 1-second overlap.\n    Both overlaps are very short (1 second) and appear to be instances of enthusiastic or natural turn-taking rather than disruptive interruptions. They are well within the acceptable range for \"brief overlaps\" and do not harm the conversation's flow.\n- Pauses: There are no long pauses between speaker turns. All transitions are immediate or near-immediate, contributing to a smooth and natural conversational rhythm. For example, Speaker B ends at 00:08 and Speaker A begins at 00:08; Speaker B ends at 00:18 and Speaker A begins at 00:18; Speaker A ends at 00:27 and Speaker B begins at 00:27. This indicates high interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--114196",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, babe. I just finished the article.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: That's great! How did it turn out?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: It went really well. I'm really proud of myself.\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: Oh, sorry, I just got excited. So, what part of the article are you most proud of?\n[00:12 - 00:23] Speaker A: I think the conclusion really ties everything together. But also, the way I structured the arguments felt really solid. Thanks, babe. I couldn't have done it without your support.\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B: Of course, you're welcome. I'm always here for you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one, maintaining a coherent conversation flow.\n- Speaker B's \"How did it turn out?\" directly responds to Speaker A's \"finished the article.\"\n- Speaker A's \"It went really well. I'm really proud of myself\" directly answers B's question.\n- Speaker B's follow-up \"So, what part of the article are you most proud of?\" delves deeper into the topic established by A's previous statement. The \"Oh, sorry, I just got excited\" also shows an awareness of the conversational dynamic and is a relevant interjection.\n- Speaker A's detailed answer about the conclusion and structure, along with the thank you, is a direct and relevant response to B's inquiry and B's implicit support.\n- Speaker B's final response (\"Of course, you're welcome. I'm always here for you.\") is a natural and supportive reply to Speaker A's gratitude.\nThe topic remains consistently focused on the article and the shared experience, demonstrating strong topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high.\n- There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's first turn (ends 0:02) and Speaker B's first turn (starts 0:03). This is a very brief and natural pause, not considered prolonged.\n- There is a brief overlap of 1 second from 0:04 to 0:05, where Speaker A starts speaking (\"It went really well...\") while Speaker B is still finishing (\"...how did it turn out?\"). The instructions state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This particular overlap is short and appears to be Speaker A eagerly responding, which is a common and natural occurrence in conversational speech.\n- Speaker B's immediate follow-up \"Oh, sorry, I just got excited\" (starting at 0:07, directly after A's turn ends) acknowledges a potential conversational misstep or eagerness, but it resolves any potential awkwardness and demonstrates good interactional awareness. This doesn't detract from fluency; rather, it enhances its naturalness.\n- All subsequent turns flow immediately one after another without any noticeable long pauses or extended overlaps.\nOverall, the pacing is natural, and the minor overlap is within acceptable limits.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--540",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: How's your day going?\n[00:01 - 00:06] Speaker B: Good thanks! I was just learning how to play this song today, and it sounds pretty challenging but\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I just remembered, what song are you learning to play?\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B: It's \"Let It Be\" by The Beatles. It's such a classic! Anyway, it sounds pretty great so far.\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker A: Nice! I'm so jealous, I can't play anything.\n[00:20 - 00:21] Speaker B: Really? Why not?\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker A: I've tried so many times to learn, but I just can't. Do you think I just have bad coordination\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker B: Maybe it's not about having bad hands. Have you tried different learning methods or maybe a different instrument?\n[00:33 - 00:34] Speaker A: What do you mean bad hands?\n[00:35 - 00:37] Speaker B: I don't know, I just don't have good coordination.\n[00:38 - 00:42] Speaker A: Uh, I don't think so... I think it just might take some practice!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains good topic coherence and logical consistency throughout most turns. Speakers respond directly to questions and build on previous statements.\n\nHowever, there is a clear breakdown in logical consistency and response relevance in Speaker B's turn at [00:35 - 00:37].\n- At [00:22 - 00:28], Speaker A asks if they have \"bad coordination.\"\n- At [00:27 - 00:32], Speaker B responds, \"Maybe it's not about having bad hands. Have you tried different learning methods...\" Here, Speaker B substitutes \"bad hands\" for Speaker A's \"bad coordination.\"\n- At [00:33 - 00:34], Speaker A, seeking clarification on B's phrasing, asks, \"What do you mean bad hands?\" This is a direct request for Speaker B to explain *their own choice of words* (\"bad hands\") in the context of A's problem.\n- At [00:35 - 00:37], Speaker B responds, \"I don't know, I just don't have good coordination.\" This response is problematic. Instead of clarifying what *they meant* by \"bad hands\" when addressing Speaker A's issue, Speaker B states *their own* lack of coordination. It fails to answer the clarification question posed by Speaker A and projects Speaker B's personal perceived issue, creating a logical inconsistency and a significant disruption in the flow of clarification. Speaker A's follow-up at [00:38 - 00:42] attempts to recover the conversation, indicating B's previous turn was off-topic/irrelevant to the question.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is largely natural.\n- There is a brief overlap at [00:05 - 00:09] where Speaker A interjects. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the interruption feel natural and polite rather than disruptive.\n- Another brief overlap occurs at [00:27 - 00:32] where Speaker B cuts in. This is also short and common in natural conversation, where a speaker might anticipate or eagerly respond to a point.\n- There are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected in the transcript. The turns are relatively quick and responsive. The brief overlaps do not hinder understanding or conversation flow.\nOverall, the interactional fluency is good.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--659",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Do you know of any good new shows on Netflix?\n[00:03 - 00:11] Speaker B: Hey, I've never been a huge fan of watching TV. I don't really have a ton of time, so I'm afraid I can't really help you there. But I bet you could find some\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but do you have any favorite genres? Maybe I could narrow down my search.\n[00:17 - 00:25] Speaker B: I usually enjoy documentaries when I do watch something. As I was saying, you could get some recommendations on /r/NetflixBestOf or /r/ShowsToWatch.\n[00:25 - 00:27] Speaker A: Okay! Thanks, Bob!\n[00:27 - 00:28] Speaker B: Hey, no problem!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance.\n- Speaker B initially states they can't directly help with recommendations due to not watching much TV, which is a direct and logical answer to Speaker A's initial request.\n- Speaker A then rephrases their question to inquire about Speaker B's preferred genres, which is a coherent follow-up, attempting to narrow down the search given Speaker B's limitations. This shows logical consistency in topic progression.\n- Speaker B's response about enjoying documentaries directly answers Speaker A's modified question. Speaker B also reiterates and specifies the earlier suggestion to find recommendations (on Reddit), providing concrete, helpful advice despite their initial inability to directly recommend. This shows a helpful and relevant follow-through.\n- The concluding turns are standard acknowledgments and responses to thanks, maintaining coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good.\n- There is one brief overlap between Speaker B (ending at 00:11) and Speaker A (starting at 00:10), meaning Speaker A began speaking approximately 1 second before Speaker B finished their thought.\n- Speaker A mitigates this overlap by saying \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the overlap feel natural and polite, rather than disruptive. This falls within the \"brief overlaps... are acceptable\" criteria.\n- There are no extended overlaps or prolonged pauses between turns. The pauses are minimal (e.g., 1 second between 00:02 and 00:03, and 00:16 and 00:17), which are natural in conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--138832",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey boss, do you think I could talk to you for a second?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yeah, what's up?\n[00:05 - 00:14] Speaker A: Well, I'm kind of in a tight spot financially and I was wondering if there's any way I could get an advance on my next paycheck to\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker B: Oh, I see. Before we go into that, have you already tried talking to HR? They might have some options we could explore together.\n[00:19 - 00:28] Speaker A: I haven't yet, but I thought I'd ask you first since it's a bit urgent. I just need enough to cover my rent and utilities for this month.\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker B: Alright, I'll see what I can do. Come back in a little bit and we'll talk.\n[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker A: Thank you so much!\n[00:34 - 00:35] Speaker B: No problem.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout.\n*   **Speaker A (0:00-0:03) & Speaker B (0:03-0:04):** Speaker A initiates the conversation, and Speaker B's \"Yeah, what's up?\" is a perfectly relevant and encouraging response, inviting Speaker A to state their purpose.\n*   **Speaker A (0:05-0:14) & Speaker B (0:12-0:19):** Speaker A clearly articulates their financial difficulty and request for an advance. Speaker B's response \"Oh, I see. Before we go into that, have you already tried talking to HR?\" is highly relevant. It acknowledges the request, shows understanding (\"Oh, I see\"), and then immediately brings up a standard, logical first step (contacting HR), which is appropriate for a manager in this situation.\n*   **Speaker A (0:19-0:28):** Speaker A directly answers Speaker B's question about HR and provides a rationale for approaching the boss directly (urgency), reinforcing their immediate need (\"cover my rent and utilities for this month\"). This maintains topic coherence and explains their actions.\n*   **Speaker B (0:28-0:32):** Speaker B's \"Alright, I'll see what I can do. Come back in a little bit and we'll talk.\" is a relevant and practical response. It indicates willingness to help, acknowledges the urgency (by offering a follow-up), and avoids making an immediate commitment, which is reasonable for a manager.\n*   **Speaker A (0:32-0:34) & Speaker B (0:34-0:35):** The concluding exchanges (\"Thank you so much!\" and \"No problem.\") are standard and relevant expressions of gratitude and acknowledgement, bringing the interaction to a natural close.\n\nAll turns logically follow the preceding ones, and the conversation stays focused on Speaker A's financial request and Speaker B's potential assistance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates good interactional fluency with only one minor, natural overlap, and no long pauses.\n*   **[00:00 - 00:04]:** Clear turn-taking, no pauses or overlaps.\n*   **[00:05 - 00:19]:** There is an overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B. Speaker A says, \"Well, I'm kind of in a tight spot financially and I was wondering if there's any way I could get an advance on my next paycheck to\" (ends at 0:14). Speaker B starts at 0:12 with \"Oh, I see. Before we go into that...\". This is a 2-second overlap. However, Speaker A's sentence trails off with \"to\", indicating they might have been pausing or completing their thought. Speaker B's \"Oh, I see\" is a natural interjection of understanding that often occurs before the previous speaker has completely finished, especially if they are trailing off or pausing. This overlap is not \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\"; it signifies active listening and smooth conversational flow rather than a struggle for the speaking turn.\n*   **[00:19 - 00:35]:** The rest of the conversation shows crisp turn-taking with no noticeable long pauses or further overlaps. The responses are immediate and natural.\n\nOverall, the conversation flows very naturally, resembling real-life dialogue where minor overlaps for acknowledgement or anticipation are common and do not hinder understanding.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--537",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, I have a great recipe for tuna salad!\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: I would prefer to stick to what I already know. Tuna salad is just not a taste that I'm very fond\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but have you ever tried it with a twist, like adding some avocado or a different kind of seasoning?\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker B: Actually, I haven't. But I'm still a bit hesitant. What makes your recipe so special?\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker A: It's the combination of fresh ingredients and a unique dressing. Plus, it's really easy to make and doesn't require\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker B: Easy to make sounds good, but I'm worried about the ingredients. Are they easy to find in regular stores?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A introduces a topic (tuna salad recipe), and Speaker B initially expresses disinterest but then shows curiosity, asking \"What makes your recipe so special?\" and subsequently raising concerns about ingredients. Each speaker's turn builds directly on the previous one, maintaining the focus on the tuna salad recipe and its potential appeal/concerns. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant comments. The conversation flows naturally as Speaker A tries to persuade Speaker B, and Speaker B expresses reservations and asks clarifying questions, which is a very logical progression for this type of interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the maximum pause is 1 second, which is acceptable and natural. There are two instances of brief overlaps, both lasting 1 second:\n1.  **[00:07 - 00:08]: Speaker A overlaps Speaker B.** Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and politeness, making the interruption less jarring. While an interruption, its brevity and apology make it fall within the realm of acceptable conversational dynamics, often indicative of eagerness to contribute.\n2.  **[00:26 - 00:27]: Speaker B overlaps Speaker A.** This overlap occurs as Speaker B starts speaking just before Speaker A finishes their sentence. This is a common and often natural occurrence in fluent conversation, suggesting active listening and prompt turn-taking rather than a problematic interruption.\n\nGiven that \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" these instances do not detract significantly from the interactional fluency. The conversation feels dynamic and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--10058",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey Tony, do you want to play a game of chess?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yeah, sure. I could use a break from studying.\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: Great! I've been practicing and I'm determined to beat you one day.\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: Ha! We'll see about that. I'm not going to go easy on you just because you're new to the game. I've\n[00:16 - 00:25] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but I just remembered—I read about this new opening strategy that I wanted to try out. Do you mind if I experiment a bit during this game?\n[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker B: Not at all, go ahead! But just so you know, I've been working on countering those too.\n[00:30 - 00:34] Speaker A: Don't worry, I can handle it. Let's get started.\n[00:34 - 00:37] Speaker B: All right. White always goes first, so you make the first move.\n[00:38 - 00:41] Speaker A: OK. *Moves pawn forward two spaces*\n[00:42 - 00:45] Speaker B: *Moves pawn forward two spaces* So, how's school going?\n[00:46 - 00:50] Speaker A: It's good. I'm really enjoying my classes this semester.\n[00:50 - 00:56] Speaker B: That's great! I'm glad to hear that you're doing well in school and also finding time to improve your chess skills.\n[00:56 - 01:02] Speaker A: Yeah, it's been tough balancing everything but I'm managing so far. Tony, your turn.\n[01:02 - 01:08] Speaker B: *Thinks for a moment before making his move* So what are your plans for after graduation? Any\n[01:07 - 01:16] Speaker A: Oh, before we dive into future plans, I just remembered—how's that group project you mentioned last time going? Did you manage to sort out the issues with your teammates?\n[01:17 - 01:25] Speaker B: We did, actually. It took a bit of work, but we finally got everyone on the same page. As for after graduation, I'm still figuring things out. What about you?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speakers A and B engage in a natural back-and-forth, moving from discussing a chess game to general small talk about school and future plans. Even when Speaker A introduces a new topic (the group project) at [01:07], it's framed as a remembered item from a previous conversation, and Speaker B seamlessly addresses it before returning to the initial thread about post-graduation plans. There are no contradictions or illogical statements. The conversational turns are always relevant to the ongoing context or smoothly transition to a related topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is largely natural and appropriate. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; all indicated pauses appear to be brief and natural. There are two instances of brief overlaps initiated by Speaker A:\n1.  At [00:16 - 00:17], Speaker A cuts into Speaker B's sentence (\"I've\") but immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to cut in\"), indicating awareness of the interruption.\n2.  At [01:07 - 01:08], Speaker A again starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their thought (\"Any\"), prefacing their interjection with \"Oh, before we dive into future plans, I just remembered—\".\nBoth overlaps are brief and do not result in a loss of information or significant disruption to the conversation's flow. Speaker B is able to seamlessly continue or respond after these overlaps. The instructions state that \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these examples fit that description, rather than being \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns [that] are harmful.\" The conversation maintains a natural, dynamic pace.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--313",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I want to go to China for sight-seeing. What do you think of it, Mum?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Why not? China is a wonderful destination with\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: Actually, I've been reading about the Great Wall and the Terracotta Army. Do you think it's safe to travel there alone?\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: Yes, it's generally safe, but you should always be cautious. By the way, I was saying that China is a wonderful country.\n[00:20 - 00:21] Speaker A: Will you go with me, too?\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker B: No, I'm afraid not now. I'm too busy.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker A initiates the conversation about traveling to China, and Speaker B responds by affirming it as a \"wonderful destination.\"\n- Speaker A then shifts to a relevant sub-topic: specific concerns about safety when traveling alone, which is a natural progression from planning a trip.\n- Speaker B directly addresses the safety concern (\"Yes, it's generally safe, but you should always be cautious.\") and then attempts to smoothly transition back to their interrupted point about China being a wonderful country, showing an effort to maintain topic coherence. While slightly clunky with \"By the way, I was saying...\", it's still relevant to the overarching topic and Speaker B's previous thought.\n- Speaker A's subsequent question, \"Will you go with me, too?\" is a logical and natural follow-up, stemming from the discussion of travel plans and personal safety.\n- Speaker B's final response, \"No, I'm afraid not now. I'm too busy,\" is a direct and coherent answer to Speaker A's question.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses, abrupt topic shifts without reason, or illogical statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with natural turn-taking.\n- **Pauses:** All pauses between turns are brief (1 second). For example, [00:03 - 00:04], [00:19 - 00:20], and [00:21 - 00:22] are 1-second pauses. These are considered \"small pauses\" and are acceptable according to the guidelines.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap between [00:07 - 00:08] where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This overlap is only 1 second in duration. As per the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this specific instance does not appear to be prolonged or harmful, but rather a natural occurrence in dynamic conversation where one speaker anticipates the other's turn or has an urgent follow-up.\nThe dialogue flows naturally without any extended awkward silences or disruptive interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 4
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--321",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: My throat is really dry.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Do you want to go get something to drink?\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker A: Yes, I'm thinking about\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: Wait, before you decide, do you know that soda doesn't really help with thirst?\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: I was actually going to say I'm parched and was thinking about getting a soda. Why doesn't it help?\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: Soda is really bad for you. It's full of sugar and can actually make you more dehydrated.\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker A: I didn't know that. I don't know what else to choose that\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B: How about water? It's the best thing to drink when you're dehydrated.\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker A: You're right. I was going to say I don't know what else to drink, but I guess I would like some water.\n[00:34 - 00:36] Speaker B: That's exactly what will keep you from being thirsty.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance.\n- Speaker B's initial suggestion to \"get something to drink\" directly addresses Speaker A's \"dry throat.\"\n- Speaker B's interruption about soda not helping with thirst is relevant as Speaker A was \"thinking about\" what to drink, and B correctly anticipates A might consider soda. This also leads to a natural clarification from Speaker A.\n- Speaker B's explanation about why soda doesn't help is a direct answer to Speaker A's question.\n- Speaker B's suggestion of water is a relevant alternative when Speaker A expresses not knowing \"what else to choose.\"\n- Speaker A's eventual acceptance of water and Speaker B's final confirmation maintain the focus on solving the initial problem.\nAll turns are logically consistent, build upon previous statements, and maintain clear topic coherence, leading to a productive conversation where a problem is identified and a suitable solution is found.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- **Pauses:** All pauses between turns are approximately 1 second, which is natural and does not disrupt the flow of the conversation. These are \"small pauses\" and are acceptable according to the criteria.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - [00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A at 0:05. This is a common and natural way for a speaker to interject with new, pertinent information (\"Wait, before you decide...\"). It's a brief, functional overlap.\n    - [00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A at 0:23. Speaker A is expressing hesitation (\"I don't know what else to choose that\"), and Speaker B jumps in with a suggestion (\"How about water?\"). This is also a brief and natural interruption, indicating engagement and eagerness to help.\nNeither overlap is prolonged or disruptive; they serve to make the conversation feel dynamic and real, aligning with the criteria that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--27139",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much. What's up with you?\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker A: I don't know. Everything just seems to be going wrong lately and I can't seem to catch a break. It's\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but when you say everything is going wrong, do you mean at work, or is it more personal stuff?\n[00:15 - 00:24] Speaker A: It's a bit of both, honestly. Work has been overwhelming, and at the same time, personal issues are just piling up. I can't handle the pressure\n[00:23 - 00:32] Speaker B: I get that. Work and personal life can really weigh on you when they both go haywire. Do you want to start with work? Maybe there's something specific we can figure out together.\n[00:32 - 00:41] Speaker A: Yeah, let's start with work. It's been really stressful lately, and I feel like I'm constantly behind on everything. I just don't know how to catch up.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn is logically consistent with the preceding statements and maintains strong topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial response \"Not much. What's up with you?\" is a standard and relevant follow-up to Speaker A's greeting.\n- Speaker B's clarifying question \"Sorry to jump in, but when you say everything is going wrong, do you mean at work, or is it more personal stuff?\" demonstrates active listening and a desire to understand Speaker A's vague distress, which is highly relevant for offering support.\n- Speaker A's response \"It's a bit of both, honestly...\" directly answers Speaker B's clarifying question and elaborates on the problem.\n- Speaker B's empathetic response \"I get that. Work and personal life can really weigh on you...\" validates Speaker A's feelings and then offers a relevant and actionable suggestion (\"Do you want to start with work?\").\n- Speaker A's final response \"Yeah, let's start with work...\" accepts the suggestion and further elaborates on the work-related stress, setting up the next phase of the conversation.\nThe conversation flows naturally and logically, building upon each turn to move from a general complaint to a specific area of discussion (work issues).\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural conversational rhythm.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps, but they are not extended or harmful.\n    - At [00:09], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. However, Speaker B explicitly says, \"Sorry to jump in,\" which acknowledges the interruption and makes it feel polite and natural, serving the purpose of seeking immediate clarification. This is a brief, functional overlap, not a prolonged one.\n    - At [00:23], Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence at [00:24]. This is a very brief, 1-second overlap. It doesn't disrupt the flow; rather, it suggests an eager, empathetic response from Speaker B who is quick to validate Speaker A's feelings and offer a path forward. This brief overlap contributes to the naturalness of the conversation and is well within the acceptable limits.\nOverall, the timing and turn-taking contribute to a highly fluent and natural-sounding interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--33503",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi, I'm new here.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Where're you from?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm from out of town.\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker B: What brings you to our town?\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm just passing through.\n[00:09 - 00:10] Speaker B: Where are you headed?\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker A: I don't really know. I'm just trying to\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but if you're just exploring, have you checked out the old town square? It's one of the highlights around here.\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker A: That sounds interesting! I was actually going to say I'm just exploring, so that might be a good place to start.\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker B: Definitely! Our town is a great place to explore. We have a lot of history and culture here. You'll love it!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate excellent logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B consistently asks relevant follow-up questions based on Speaker A's previous statements (e.g., \"new here\" -> \"Where're you from?\", \"out of town\" -> \"What brings you?\", \"passing through\" -> \"Where are you headed?\"). Critically, when Speaker A is mid-sentence, Speaker B intervenes with \"Sorry to jump in, but if you're just exploring...\" This interruption, while a fluency point, is highly relevant as Speaker B correctly anticipates Speaker A's intended meaning (\"I'm just exploring\"). Speaker A confirms this (\"I was actually going to say I'm just exploring\"), validating Speaker B's assumption and the relevance of the suggestion. The conversation flows naturally from general inquiries about Speaker A's presence to a specific, relevant recommendation, and Speaker A's positive reception to it.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally very good. Most turn-takes are immediate or have brief, acceptable pauses (1 second). There is one instance of an extended overlapping turn: at [00:11 - 00:18], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A who is still speaking at [00:10 - 00:13]. This is a prolonged overlap. However, Speaker B explicitly mitigates this by saying \"Sorry to jump in,\" which acknowledges the interruption and maintains politeness. The content of Speaker B's interjection also directly aligns with what Speaker A was about to say, making it a very naturalistic, albeit slightly forceful, turn-take rather than a disruptive one. The dialogue recovers seamlessly, with Speaker A confirming Speaker B's accurate anticipation. Given the explicit apology and the contextual appropriateness of the interruption (it moves the conversation forward effectively by anticipating the other speaker's thought), this specific prolonged overlap does not significantly harm the overall interactional flow or understanding. It demonstrates a high level of attunement between speakers.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--54",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Did you hear about Lulu?\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: No, what?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker A: She and Vic broke up and now she's asked for a transfer to\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: Wait, they were dating? How did I miss that?\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: Yeah, they kept it pretty low-key. Anyway, she's asked for a transfer.\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker B: A transfer? Where is she planning to go?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and maintain excellent logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's \"No, what?\" (00:01-00:02) is a direct and natural follow-up to Speaker A's opening question.\n- Speaker B's \"Wait, they were dating? How did I miss that?\" (00:05-00:08) is a relevant reaction and clarifying question to Speaker A's revelation about Lulu and Vic breaking up, even though it occurs as an overlap. It shows engagement with the topic.\n- Speaker A's \"Yeah, they kept it pretty low-key. Anyway, she's asked for a transfer.\" (00:09-00:14) directly answers Speaker B's interjection and then attempts to resume the original narrative, demonstrating coherent topic management.\n- Speaker B's \"A transfer? Where is she planning to go?\" (00:14-00:17) directly picks up on the latest piece of information provided by Speaker A, showing active listening and furthering the conversation logically.\nThere are no instances of topic drift, illogical statements, or misunderstandings. The conversation flows naturally from one point to the next, with each speaker building on the previous turn.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good, indicating natural conversation dynamics.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one noticeable overlap:\n    - Speaker A: [00:02 - 00:06] \"She and Vic broke up and now she's asked for a transfer to\"\n    - Speaker B: [00:05 - 00:08] \"Wait, they were dating? How did I miss that?\"\n    This overlap is approximately 1 second long (from 00:05 to 00:06). Speaker B's interjection is a spontaneous reaction to Speaker A's revelation (\"broke up\") and serves to express surprise and seek clarification. As per the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this fits that description. It does not hinder understanding or flow; instead, it makes the dialogue sound more natural and engaged.\n- **Pauses:** There is one short pause:\n    - Speaker B ends at 00:08.\n    - Speaker A starts at 00:09.\n    This pause is 1 second long. This is a \"small pause\" and is perfectly acceptable in natural conversation, allowing for processing or turn-taking. There are no \"long pauses between speaker turns.\"\nOverall, the timing of turns, including the brief overlap and small pause, contribute to a realistic and fluent conversational exchange without causing any disruption or awkwardness.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--71221",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi there. Isn't it a beautiful evening?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: It certainly is. I love spending time in nature, it always makes me feel so connected to\n[00:06 - 00:15] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I was just thinking—do you usually come here around this time? I've been trying to find the best time to avoid the crowd.\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B: Yeah, I try to come every day if I can. It's a great way to clear my head and relax. Plus, it's free!\n[00:22 - 00:30] Speaker A: Ha, yes that's true. There's nothing like getting away from the hustle and bustle of daily life, even if it's just for a little while. It\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker B: Speaking of hustle, do you ever feel like it's getting harder to find these peaceful moments with everything going on?\n[00:35 - 00:43] Speaker A: Absolutely. I think everyone should take some time out to appreciate nature every once in awhile. It definitely does wonders for the soul.\n[00:44 - 00:48] Speaker B: I couldn't agree more. Well, it was nice chatting with you. Enjoy the rest of your evening!\n[00:49 - 00:51] Speaker A: You too! Have a great night.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn builds logically on the previous one.\n*   Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's observation about the evening and expands on it by expressing love for nature.\n*   Speaker A's \"Sorry to jump in\" transition, while an overlap, is an acknowledged shift to a related query about the best time to visit, which is a coherent follow-up in the context of being in a shared public space.\n*   Speaker B answers the question directly and elaborates on personal reasons for coming, maintaining the theme of relaxation.\n*   Speaker A picks up on Speaker B's point about getting away from \"hustle and bustle,\" showing continuity.\n*   Speaker B's \"Speaking of hustle\" is an excellent example of topic coherence, using Speaker A's last phrase as a bridge to a new, but related, question about finding peace.\n*   Speaker A's reply confirms agreement and reinforces the benefits of nature, tying back to the initial appreciation of the setting.\n*   The closing remarks are standard and relevant to ending a casual conversation.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant or illogical responses, and the topic flows naturally.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally very good.\n*   There are two instances of overlaps:\n    *   At [00:06], Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their thought. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which is a natural and polite way to manage a brief overlap in conversational turn-taking, indicating responsiveness rather than a disruptive interruption. The overlap is 1 second (00:06-00:07) which is brief.\n    *   At [00:29], Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. Speaker B uses Speaker A's last word (\"hustle\") to bridge into their turn (\"Speaking of hustle\"), which is a common and highly natural way to smoothly take over a turn in conversation. This overlap is also 1 second (00:29-00:30) and does not impede understanding.\n*   There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The responses are quick and continuous, giving the impression of an engaging and natural conversation.\nThe brief, acknowledged overlaps and the smooth turn-taking contribute to the naturalness of the dialogue rather than detracting from it.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--600",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hello! How are you?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm fine! What do you think of the Pacific theater?\n[00:04 - 00:15] Speaker A: It's interesting - the Japanese forces in World War II were pretty vicious, yet they still managed to pull off their surprise attack. In retrospect, the war itself was pretty traumatic for\n[00:14 - 00:22] Speaker B: I have a different opinion on that. While the war was indeed brutal, some argue it was a turning point that shaped modern geopolitics significantly.\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker A: Yeah, it was pretty horrifying for everyone involved. My great-grandfather fought in the War in the Pacific.\n[00:30 - 00:32] Speaker B: I hope you were able to meet him before he passed away.\n[00:31 - 00:42] Speaker A: Oh, I did meet him! He had so many stories. By the way, you mentioned the Japanese Imperial Army earlier. Did he share any specific experiences from that time?\n[00:42 - 00:51] Speaker B: Yeah, my family still has photos of him in the Japanese Imperial Army. He talked about the harsh conditions they faced and the camaraderie among soldiers.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance and logical consistency, particularly in the latter half.\n\n1.  **Logical Inconsistency and Topic Derailment (0:31 - 0:51):**\n    *   At [0:31], Speaker A states, \"By the way, you mentioned the Japanese Imperial Army earlier.\" This is factually incorrect. Speaker B never mentioned the \"Japanese Imperial Army.\" Speaker A mentioned \"Japanese forces\" at [0:04]. This is a clear misattribution and factual error on Speaker A's part.\n    *   The major issue arises at [0:42] when Speaker B responds, \"Yeah, my family still has photos of him in the Japanese Imperial Army. He talked about the harsh conditions they faced and the camaraderie among soldiers.\" Instead of correcting Speaker A's factual error, Speaker B not only validates it but also introduces a completely new, and highly improbable, topic of *their own* family member serving in the Japanese Imperial Army. This creates a severe logical inconsistency, especially given that Speaker A's great-grandfather fought in the Pacific War (implying against the Japanese). This response completely derails the conversation from Speaker A's great-grandfather's experiences to Speaker B's family member, based on a false premise. The conversation loses coherence and becomes nonsensical in context.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits some issues with interactional fluency due to overlapping speech.\n\n1.  **Extended Overlap/Interruption (0:14 - 0:15):** Speaker B starts speaking at [0:14] while Speaker A is still speaking and has not finished their sentence, which ends at [0:15]. This is an interruption that cuts off Speaker A's turn, making the conversation less fluid and natural. While only 1 second, it's disruptive because it prevents the preceding speaker from completing their thought.\n2.  **Brief Overlap (0:31 - 0:32):** Speaker A starts speaking at [0:31] while Speaker B is still speaking and finishes at [0:32]. This is a brief overlap where Speaker A begins just as Speaker B is concluding, which can be common in natural conversation and is less disruptive than the first instance as B completes their sentence.\nThere are no long pauses between turns. However, the interruption at 0:14 is a notable negative point for fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--67003",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, are you all right? I'm sorry, I didn't see you coming around\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: No worries, but are you sure you're okay? You seemed pretty startled.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm fine. Just a little shaken up. What happened?\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker B: I was just walking and lost my balance. I must have fallen right on top of you. Are you sure you're okay?\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm fine. Thanks for asking.\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker B: No problem. I'm just glad you're all right. I would hate for anything to happen to you, especially\n[00:26 - 00:28] Speaker A: Thanks, Eisley. I appreciate that.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one.\n- Speaker A initiates with concern and an apology, which Speaker B immediately acknowledges (\"No worries\") and reciprocates the concern (\"are you sure you're okay?\").\n- Speaker A answers the concern and then logically asks \"What happened?\", which Speaker B explains clearly.\n- Speaker A confirms being fine again and expresses gratitude, which Speaker B responds to (\"No problem\") and expands upon their concern.\n- Speaker A then thanks Speaker B for their expression of care, even using Speaker B's name (\"Eisley\"), which adds a personal and consistent touch.\nThe topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on the aftermath of an accidental collision and mutual well-being. There are no sudden topic shifts or illogical jumps.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two brief overlaps noted:\n- `[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: No worries, but are you sure you're okay? You seemed pretty startled.` Overlaps `[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A` by 1 second. This is a very common and natural type of overlap where one speaker begins their response slightly before the other finishes, indicating active listening and quick turn-taking. It's not disruptive.\n- `[00:26 - 00:28] Speaker A: Thanks, Eisley. I appreciate that.` Overlaps `[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker B` by 1 second. Speaker A starts to respond to Speaker B's expression of care (\"I would hate for anything to happen to you, especially\") before Speaker B fully completes their sentence. This is also a natural and acceptable brief overlap, often signaling acknowledgement or agreement in conversation, not a prolonged interruption.\nThere are also two brief pauses:\n- A 1-second pause between `[00:18] Speaker B` and `[00:19] Speaker A`.\n- A 1-second pause between `[00:21] Speaker A` and `[00:22] Speaker B`.\nThese pauses are very short and typical of natural conversation, allowing for processing or turn transition without causing any awkwardness or indicating a breakdown in communication. There are no extended pauses or overlaps that would be considered harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--572",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I've always been interested in geography. Do you have any favorite places to visit?\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: I teach in Vermont, so my hometown is Lake Champlain. The Adirondacks in New York are really great for hiking,\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but Lake Champlain sounds fascinating! What makes it special for you?\n[00:16 - 00:26] Speaker B: It's a beautiful and serene place, perfect for outdoor activities. But I was also going to mention how the Adirondacks offer a unique blend of natural beauty and historical significance,\n[00:25 - 00:32] Speaker A: The Adirondacks must be amazing! Are there any particular spots or activities there that you would recommend?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's initial question about favorite places. Speaker A's interruption to ask about Lake Champlain is a direct follow-up on Speaker B's prior statement, and Speaker A explicitly apologizes for the interruption, demonstrating awareness. Speaker B then gracefully answers the question about Lake Champlain and *returns* to their original point about the Adirondacks, which shows excellent logical consistency and an ability to manage the conversational thread despite being interrupted. Speaker A then picks up on the Adirondacks topic, asking for recommendations, maintaining coherence. The conversation flows naturally from one related point to another.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates good fluency. There are two instances of brief overlaps (both approximately 1 second in duration: [00:10 - 00:11] and [00:25 - 00:26]). These are short and can be considered \"brief overlaps\" which the criteria state are acceptable. Notably, in the first overlap, Speaker A says \"Sorry to jump in,\" which indicates self-awareness and mitigates the impact of the interruption, making it feel more natural and less disruptive. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Overall, the flow is dynamic and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--76689",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:12] Speaker A: Sarah, I can't believe this is happening to me. I lost everything in the fire - my home, my belongings, everything. I'm living in a homeless shelter now and I don't know what to do next.\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: I can't imagine how overwhelming that must be. Do you have any family or friends who can support you through this?\n[00:17 - 00:33] Speaker A: No, not really. My parents are both deceased and I don't have any close friends here in town. Everyone I knew was either at work or school when the fire happened. Luckily, the people at the shelter have been really helpful, but it's just not the same as having your own place where you\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker B: That makes sense. Maybe we can help you get back on your feet? Do you need some money for food or clothes?\n[00:38 - 00:49] Speaker A: No, I'm okay for now. The shelter has been providing me with food and clothes. I'm just not sure what I'm going to do long-term. I don't have a job or a place to start rebuilding\n[00:48 - 00:55] Speaker B: Wait, have you thought about staying with me for a while? You can stay as long as you need to until you get back on your feet.\n[00:55 - 00:57] Speaker A: Really? Are you sure that's okay with your\n[00:57 - 01:00] Speaker B: Of course! You're like a sister to me, we'll help you get through this.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance throughout. Speaker B consistently offers empathetic and practical responses that directly address Speaker A's expressed distress and needs.\n- At `[00:11 - 00:17]`, Speaker B's question about family/friends directly follows Speaker A's initial lament, showing active listening and an attempt to understand the support system.\n- At `[00:33 - 00:38]`, Speaker B's offer of money for food/clothes is a direct and practical response to Speaker A's situation, even though Speaker A clarifies it's not the immediate need. It demonstrates a willingness to help.\n- The most impactful relevant response comes at `[00:48 - 00:55]`, where Speaker B offers a place to stay. This directly addresses Speaker A's stated long-term concern of \"not having a job or a place to start rebuilding,\" showing deep understanding and a concrete solution.\n- Finally, at `[00:57 - 01:00]`, Speaker B's reassurance \"Of course! You're like a sister to me, we'll help you get through this\" directly responds to Speaker A's hesitation and provides crucial emotional support, reinforcing the offer.\nThe logical consistency is high; each turn builds naturally on the previous one, maintaining a clear topic coherence around Speaker A's crisis and Speaker B's supportive response.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps: `[00:11 - 00:17]` for Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A's preceding turn at `00:11` (1 second overlap), and `[00:48 - 00:55]` for Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A's preceding turn at `00:48` (1 second overlap). These are very short, common in natural conversation, and indicative of active listening and quick responses rather than disruptive interjections. They do not constitute \"extended overlaps.\"\n- There are no discernible long pauses between speaker turns. The conversation flows smoothly and naturally without any awkward silences.\nThe pacing of the dialogue feels realistic and uninterrupted.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--113175",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm really disappointed that I can't go to the ball. I was looking forward to it for weeks now,\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: I know you were, honey, but you're just too young. I understand it feels unfair, but these things have age limits for a reason.\n[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker A: But all my friends are going and I really want to go too. It's not fair that I can't go just because I'm a few years younger than them.\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker B: I get that it's frustrating, but you have to trust that we're making this decision for your safety. When you're older, you'll have plenty of chances to attend events like this.\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker A: I'm not a child, mom. I'm almost thirteen. Surely that's old enough to go to a ball.\n[00:35 - 00:41] Speaker B: No, it's not. And even if it was, you're still not going. You might feel ready, but there are things you don't fully understand\n[00:40 - 00:45] Speaker A: But it's just a ball, not some dangerous event! Why can't you trust me to handle it?\n[00:46 - 00:54] Speaker B: It's not about trust, Rylynn. It's about making sure you're ready for these experiences at the right time. Now go upstairs and do your homework like a good girl.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker A consistently expresses disappointment and frustration about not being allowed to attend the ball, presenting arguments such as friends attending, the event's perceived safety, and their own maturity. Speaker B consistently maintains the parental stance, citing age limits, safety concerns, and the concept of readiness. Each turn logically follows the previous one, building on the ongoing discussion about the ball and the reasons for denial. There are no sudden topic shifts or irrelevant remarks. The arguments presented by both parties are consistent with their roles (a frustrated teenager and a firm parent).\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the gaps are consistently around 1 second, which is natural for a back-and-forth conversation, especially one involving a disagreement. There are a couple of brief overlaps, specifically at [00:05 - 00:06] and [00:40 - 00:41]. Both are approximately 1 second in duration. The first is Speaker B starting slightly before Speaker A finishes, indicating an attentive listener. The second is Speaker A interrupting Speaker B, which is a natural occurrence in a heated or frustrating discussion and does not disrupt the flow significantly. These are considered brief and acceptable, not \"extended overlaps\" that would be harmful. The conversation feels natural and dynamic, flowing well without awkward silences or prolonged overlapping speech.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--378",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, can I talk to you for a second?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yeah, of course. What's up?\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm thinking about leaving my boyfriend.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: Oh, Jens. I'm so sorry. What were you\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker A: Wait, before you say anything more, I just need to ask—are you safe right now? Do you need somewhere to go?\n[00:16 - 00:25] Speaker B: I appreciate you asking. I'm safe for now, but he's been cheating on me and he's been really abusive lately. I just can't take it anymore.\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker A: That sounds really tough. Have you talked to anyone else about what you're\n[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker A: Sorry to cut you off, but how are you planning to tell your parents? Do you think they'll understand?\n[00:35 - 00:42] Speaker B: I haven't talked to anyone else yet. I'm still trying to figure out what to do and how to tell my parents. But I know I can't stay with him anymore.\n[00:42 - 00:48] Speaker A: Well, if you need any help or support, please let me know. I'm here for you no matter what happens.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n- **Logical Consistency & Topic Coherence (Speaker A):** At `[00:10 - 00:16]`, Speaker A abruptly cuts off Speaker B's empathetic response (`What were you-`) to ask about safety. While the safety concern is highly relevant in the context of \"leaving my boyfriend,\" the immediate, unprompted shift and interruption of Speaker B's turn shows a slight deviation from a natural conversational flow. However, Speaker B's subsequent revelation of abuse `[00:16 - 00:25]` retroactively validates Speaker A's concern, making it relevant.\n- **Logical Consistency & Topic Coherence (Speaker A - Self-Interruption):** A more significant issue arises at `[00:25 - 00:29]` and `[00:28 - 00:34]`. Speaker A starts a question (\"Have you talked to anyone else about what you're-\") but then cuts *themselves* off with \"Sorry to cut you off,\" and immediately pivots to a completely different question about telling parents. This demonstrates a clear lack of logical consistency and topic coherence within Speaker A's own turns, indicating a disjointed thought process or inability to complete a coherent question before jumping to another. This is a notable detraction from the quality of Speaker A's contributions.\n- **Logical Consistency & Topic Coherence (Speaker B):** Speaker B maintains good relevance throughout, directly addressing Speaker A's questions and providing pertinent details. For instance, at `[00:35 - 00:42]`, Speaker B efficiently answers both the incomplete question about talking to others and the abrupt question about parents, demonstrating good coherence despite Speaker A's fragmented communication.\n\n**Overall Relevance:** Speaker A exhibits significant issues in maintaining their own logical consistency and topic coherence due to self-interruption and abrupt topic shifts, which detracts from the overall flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n- **Overlapping Turns:** There is a clear and explicit overlapping turn from `[00:07 - 00:10]` where Speaker B is cut off by Speaker A at `[00:10 - 00:16]`. Speaker A states, \"Wait, before you say anything more,\" directly acknowledging the interruption. This is a prolonged and harmful overlap that disrupts the natural conversational flow.\n- **Pauses:** There are no instances of long pauses between speaker turns that would disrupt the conversation's flow.\n- **Self-Interruption:** While not an overlap between *different* speakers, Speaker A's self-interruption and immediate topic shift (`[00:25 - 00:29]` to `[00:28 - 00:34]`) creates a jarring effect within Speaker A's own turn. Although the prompt focuses on \"extended overlaps in conversation\" (implying between speakers) and \"long pauses between speaker turns,\" this self-correction/topic jump still impacts the perceived smoothness and naturalness of the dialogue, primarily affecting Response Relevance, as discussed.\n\n**Overall Fluency:** The primary issue is the explicit and prolonged overlap where Speaker A cuts off Speaker B, which significantly impacts interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--48271",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hi, I was wondering if I could talk to you about my future plans.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Of course! What would you like to discuss? Are\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: I'm not really sure what I want to do after high school. Do you think I should take some college prep courses?\n[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker B: That's a great idea! Taking some college prep courses can help you better prepare for higher education. They can also give you a head start on your college career.\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker A: But I'm not really sure if I want to go to college.\n[00:24 - 00:38] Speaker B: That's okay! You don't have to decide right now. Just taking some college prep courses can help you figure out what you want to do with your future. And even if you don't end up going to college, the courses can still be beneficial. They can help improve your writing and critical thinking skills, which\n[00:37 - 00:43] Speaker A: I was also thinking, what if I want to explore a trade or something more hands-on instead of college?\n[00:44 - 00:57] Speaker B: That's a great point. Trade schools or apprenticeships are fantastic options too, and they often lead directly to a career. The skills you gain from college prep courses could still be useful, but you might also want to look into classes that align more with hands-on work.\n[00:58 - 01:04] Speaker A: Alright, that makes sense. I'll definitely look into both options then. Thanks for the advice!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logically coherent. Speaker B effectively addresses Speaker A's evolving concerns about future plans, moving from college prep to the consideration of trade schools, while maintaining a supportive and informative tone. Speaker A's questions and considerations logically follow the conversation flow, demonstrating engagement and a natural progression of thought. There are no instances where a speaker's response is off-topic or contradictory to previous statements, ensuring high topic coherence throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, with most pauses being approximately 1 second, which is natural for conversation. There are two instances of brief overlaps (00:05-00:06 and 00:37-00:38), where Speaker A begins speaking about 1 second before Speaker B finishes their sentence. While Speaker B's sentences are cut off (\"Are\" and \"which\"), these overlaps are very brief (1 second) and do not constitute \"prolonged overlapping turns.\" They are typical of dynamic, natural conversation rather than disruptive extended overlaps. Therefore, the turn-taking is generally smooth and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--63605",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:11] Speaker A: Doctor, I've been feeling really anxious lately and it's starting to affect my day-to-day life. I'm finding it hard to concentrate at work and I'm constantly worrying about\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say \"constantly worrying,\" do you mean it's mostly about work, or are there other areas of your life that are causing concern as well?\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker A: It's a bit of both, actually. Work has been really stressful, and my personal life has been a bit chaotic too.\n[00:26 - 00:39] Speaker B: That can definitely contribute to anxiety. There are some medications that can help with anxiety, but we also need to look at ways to reduce your stress levels. Are you getting enough sleep? Eating a balanced diet? Getting some regular physical\n[00:38 - 00:50] Speaker A: Exercise? I haven't been taking care of myself very well lately. I've been working late hours and skipping meals. And the only exercise I get is walking to and from the train station.\n[00:51 - 01:02] Speaker B: That's not enough. You need to make time for yourself and take care of your body if you want to reduce your stress levels and improve your overall health. Why don't we start by looking at your diet and see if we can make some changes there?\n[01:02 - 01:05] Speaker A: Yeah, that sounds like a good idea.\n[01:05 - 01:14] Speaker B: Great. I'm going to give you a list of some healthy foods that will help reduce stress and promote relaxation. I want you to try to eat at least three of these foods every day.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates the conversation by describing their anxiety, and Speaker B's first interjection is a relevant clarification question to better understand the scope of the problem. This leads to Speaker A providing more detail. Speaker B then pivots to potential causes and solutions (stress, sleep, diet, exercise), which are all directly related to managing anxiety and the patient's reported lifestyle. Speaker A's responses acknowledge their poor self-care, directly linking back to Speaker B's suggestions. Finally, Speaker B offers a concrete, actionable step (dietary changes), which Speaker A accepts. There are no instances of off-topic remarks, misunderstandings, or irrelevant tangents. The conversation flows logically as a medical consultation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits natural conversational fluency with two minor, brief overlaps that are not disruptive but rather indicative of active listening and engagement.\n1.  At `[00:10 - 00:18]`, Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating it was done intentionally for clarification, which is acceptable and often necessary in a diagnostic context. The overlap is very brief (1 second).\n2.  At `[00:38 - 00:50]`, Speaker A completes Speaker B's sentence (\"Exercise?\"). This is a very common and natural conversational phenomenon, showing that Speaker A is actively listening and anticipating Speaker B's point. The overlap is brief (1 second) and contributes to the natural flow rather than detracting from it.\nThere are no long pauses detected between turns, ensuring a smooth and uninterrupted flow of communication.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--525",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: My mother taught me to cook a few years ago. I've really enjoyed it.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: I can't cook. My mother was a terrible cook, and my wife hates to spend time\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: Have you ever tried? There are a lot of great recipes online.\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker B: I don't know...I'm not sure I like the idea of spending time in the kitchen.\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: How about ordering in? That way you don't have to make the meal, and you don't have to spend time worrying about\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: Oh, ordering in sounds perfect! But what about healthy options? Are there good choices available for delivery?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial response about not being able to cook directly addresses Speaker A's statement about enjoying cooking. Speaker A then offers a relevant suggestion (recipes online), which Speaker B logically dismisses based on a new constraint (not liking time in the kitchen). Speaker A adeptly pivots to a solution (ordering in) that addresses this constraint. Finally, Speaker B enthusiastically accepts the new idea and poses a relevant follow-up question about healthy options, maintaining the coherence of the 'food/meal' topic. The conversation flows naturally and logically from one turn to the next, building upon previous statements and evolving the topic smoothly.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two instances of brief, 1-second overlaps:\n1.  Speaker A (0:07-0:11) starts speaking 1 second before Speaker B (0:04-0:08) finishes.\n2.  Speaker B (0:21-0:27) starts speaking 1 second before Speaker A (0:16-0:22) finishes.\nThese are considered \"brief overlaps\" according to the instructions and are common in natural conversation, indicating active listening and turn-taking without disrupting comprehension.\nThere are also small pauses of 1 second between turns (e.g., 0:11-0:12 and 0:15-0:16). These are also considered acceptable and natural. There are no prolonged pauses or extended overlaps that would harm the interaction. The pacing feels natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--175",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Welcome, what would you like to order?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I would like to get a double cheeseburger.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: Would you like everything on it?\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: I would like everything on it, thank you for\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but do you have any dietary restrictions or preferences I should be aware of?\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: No, I don't have any dietary restrictions. I was just saying thank you.\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker A: Got it! Do you want any fries?\n[00:21 - 00:23] Speaker B: Let me get some large curly fries.\n[00:23 - 00:25] Speaker A: Can I get you anything to drink?\n[00:25 - 00:27] Speaker B: Sure, how about a medium Pepsi?\n[00:28 - 00:29] Speaker A: Is that everything?\n[00:29 - 00:31] Speaker B: That'll be all. Thanks.\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker A: You're welcome, and your total is $5.48.\n[00:35 - 00:36] Speaker B: Thank you. Here you go.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker A's questions directly pertain to taking an order (e.g., \"Welcome, what would you like to order?\", \"Would you like everything on it?\", \"Do you want any fries?\", \"Can I get you anything to drink?\", \"Is that everything?\"). Speaker B's responses are direct answers to these questions and contribute logically to the ordering process (e.g., \"I would like to get a double cheeseburger,\" \"I would like everything on it,\" \"Let me get some large curly fries,\" \"Sure, how about a medium Pepsi?\", \"That'll be all\").\n\nThe only point of minor deviation is Speaker A's question about dietary restrictions. While timed somewhat awkwardly (interrupting Speaker B's \"thank you for\"), the question itself is highly relevant in a food service context, addressing potential customer needs or safety concerns. Speaker B's subsequent clarification (\"No, I don't have any dietary restrictions. I was just saying thank you.\") resolves the brief ambiguity and brings the conversation back on track smoothly. There are no illogical or off-topic responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with natural turn-taking.\nThere is one instance of an overlapping turn:\n*   [00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: I would like everything on it, thank you for\n*   [00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but do you have any dietary restrictions or preferences I should be aware of?\nThe overlap occurs from [00:07 - 00:08], lasting approximately 1 second. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the interruption with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which mitigates the impact on fluency, indicating awareness and an attempt to maintain politeness. As per the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This overlap is brief and handled well by Speaker A.\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are typically immediate or involve very brief, natural pauses (e.g., 1 second between [00:20] and [00:21], and between [00:27] and [00:28]). None of these brief pauses are prolonged or disruptive to the flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--467",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Do you have any tips for tennis?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Sure. Do you play tennis now?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm still working on my game, but I'm getting better. I'd like to play in tournaments next year.\n[00:10 - 00:11] Speaker B: Are you doing any drills?\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker A: Yes. I've been practicing with a pro a lot, so that helps a lot.\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B: I'm glad to hear that! How many years have you been playing?\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker A: I'm a beginner, but I've only been playing for a few months.\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: I think the most important thing to work on is footwork. What is your main issue?\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker A: My balance. I have to focus on staying balanced at all times, especially\n[00:32 - 00:36] Speaker B: Oh, balance is crucial! Have you tried any specific exercises to improve it?\n[00:36 - 00:44] Speaker A: I have, but I was saying that I need to stay balanced at all times. I also think my hand-eye coordination is pretty good.\n[00:45 - 00:49] Speaker B: Yeah, that's pretty important. Do you feel like you've got good hand-eye coordination?\n[00:50 - 00:53] Speaker A: I do. I watch pro games to help with that.\n[00:53 - 00:56] Speaker B: Good. What do you enjoy most about tennis?\n[00:56 - 01:01] Speaker A: I love the competition. I feel like I have to try my best, or I'll disappoint myself.\n[01:02 - 01:08] Speaker B: That's a good thing to focus on. I think you're doing well, if you're improving each week. What do you plan to do after high school?\n[01:09 - 01:12] Speaker A: I plan on going to Stanford and studying computer science.\n[01:13 - 01:17] Speaker B: That's cool! Computer science is great. Do you want to play tennis at the collegiate\n[01:16 - 01:23] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I wanted to mention that Stanford has a great tennis program. Are you aiming to join their team?\n[01:24 - 01:29] Speaker B: Yes, that's what I was about to ask! So, do you want to play tennis at Stanford?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout. Speaker B's questions consistently follow from Speaker A's previous statements, seeking clarification or elaboration (e.g., \"Do you play tennis now?\" after \"tips for tennis,\" \"Are you doing any drills?\" after \"working on my game\"). Speaker A's responses directly address these questions.\n\nThere's a slight topic shift initiated by Speaker B at [01:02 - 01:08] from tennis performance to \"What do you plan to do after high school?\". While initially seeming a bit abrupt, Speaker B immediately tries to tie it back to tennis by asking, \"Do you want to play tennis at the collegiate...\" at [01:13 - 01:17]. Speaker A's interruption at [01:16 - 01:23] (\"Sorry to jump in, but I wanted to mention that Stanford has a great tennis program. Are you aiming to join their team?\") cleverly anticipates and confirms Speaker B's intended direction, demonstrating mutual understanding and maintaining coherence by bringing the conversation back to tennis. This shows that even seemingly abrupt shifts are handled in a way that preserves overall topic coherence, often with an underlying logical connection that eventually surfaces. The dialogue flows naturally as information builds upon previous turns, even with the brief digression.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. Turn-taking is consistently smooth with very short gaps (mostly 0-1 second) between speakers' turns, indicating natural conversational rhythm. There are no long pauses that disrupt the flow.\n\nThe only instance of an overlap occurs between [01:13 - 01:17] (Speaker B) and [01:16 - 01:23] (Speaker A). Speaker A begins speaking at 01:16 while Speaker B is still speaking (ends at 01:17). This is a brief 1-second overlap, and critically, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges it with \"Sorry to jump in.\" This type of brief, acknowledged overlap is a natural characteristic of dynamic conversation and does not harm the interactional fluency. It demonstrates active listening and engagement rather than a breakdown in communication. Given the instruction that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" this dialogue perfectly fits that criterion.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--69906",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much, just hanging out. How about you?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm good, just got back from getting coffee with a friend. So what's new with you?\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: Not much, just been hanging out with friends and family. You know, the usual weekend\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: Actually, speaking of family, I was wondering if you had any plans for the holidays?\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker B: Oh, not really. Just the usual stuff. Hanging out with friends, family, and working. You know, the same old same old.\n[00:26 - 00:36] Speaker A: Yeah, I know how that is. Well, I'm glad you're doing well. Let me know if there's anything new in your life or if you ever want to hang out again.\n[00:36 - 00:40] Speaker B: Alright sounds good! Thanks for catching up with me, Stephane!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or naturally follows the previous statement. For example, Speaker B's \"Not much, just hanging out. How about you?\" directly responds to Speaker A's \"Hey, what's up?\" Speaker A then provides a relevant update and prompts Speaker B with \"So what's new with you?\" The transition from Speaker B mentioning \"friends and family\" to Speaker A asking about \"plans for the holidays\" (\"speaking of family\") demonstrates strong topic coherence and a natural conversational flow. The closing statements are also appropriate and bring the conversation to a polite and logical conclusion. There are no instances of irrelevant replies or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is very high. There are no extended overlaps that disrupt the conversation. The only overlap identified is a very brief one-second instance between Speaker B's `[00:10 - 00:14]` turn and Speaker A's `[00:13 - 00:19]` turn. This brief overlap is acceptable as per the instructions (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\") and indicates natural, predictive turn-taking where Speaker A begins their thought as Speaker B is concluding. There are also no long pauses between speaker turns. Most transitions are immediate or involve only a very short, natural pause (1 second or less), contributing to a smooth and natural conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--584",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Are you serious? You really don't like the House of Lancaster because\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but why do you support the House of Lancaster? Is it because of their historical significance?\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A: Well, yes, and I feel like the Yorkist's reputation is a little overrated. Plus, my name is Robert.\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker B: Oh, got it! So, did you have any other questions or comments about anything?\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker A: Actually, I was curious, why do you think the Yorkists have such a strong reputation?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Speaker A (00:09 - 00:16):** Speaker A's statement \"Plus, my name is Robert\" is a significant logical consistency issue. It comes out of nowhere, is completely irrelevant to the ongoing discussion about the Houses of Lancaster and York, and does not logically follow from the previous points made. It disrupts the topic coherence of the conversation.\n**Speaker B (00:16 - 00:20):** Speaker B's follow-up question \"So, did you have any other questions or comments about anything?\" is overly generic and lacks specific topic coherence. While it attempts to prompt further conversation, it fails to build on the specific points just discussed (Yorkists' reputation, or even the peculiar \"my name is Robert\" comment). It feels like a conversational reset rather than a natural progression, indicating a slight struggle to maintain specific topic flow.\n**Speaker A (00:21 - 00:26):** Speaker A's final turn brings the conversation back to the specific topic of the Yorkists, ignoring Speaker B's generic question, which shows that B's question didn't effectively guide the conversation forward.\n\nOverall, the presence of an abrupt, irrelevant personal detail from Speaker A, and a very generic, non-specific question from Speaker B, points to issues in logical consistency and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits one overlap:\n**[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A:**\n**[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B:**\nThis is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which indicates natural conversational behavior rather than a problematic, extended interruption. There are no other significant overlaps or long pauses detected between turns (e.g., 1-second pause between 00:20 and 00:21, which is acceptable). Interactional fluency appears natural and appropriate.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--487",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Katie, have you looked at your evaluation yet?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yes, I have.\n[00:05 - 00:14] Speaker A: Let's go over some of these areas. You are always available to work. But you've arrived late several times. Since I've spoken to you about this, you have tried to\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: I know, and I've been really trying to improve. I was only late once last month.\n[00:18 - 00:35] Speaker A: That's good. One more thing, Katie, when you don't have a customer, you're always standing there daydreaming. If I ask you to do something, you're always willing. But when you don't have customers, I expect you to polish the jewelry and the mirrors, put new paper in the cash register, and maybe\n[00:34 - 00:41] Speaker B: Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that was part of my duties when it's slow. I'll make sure to do that from now on. But what was the last thing you mentioned?\n[00:42 - 00:46] Speaker A: I was saying you should also restock the boxes and do other things without being asked.\n[00:47 - 00:48] Speaker B: Got it. I'll take care of that.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A consistently provides feedback and explanations related to Katie's performance evaluation. Speaker B's responses are always on topic; they acknowledge the feedback, express understanding, show willingness to improve, and ask relevant clarifying questions (e.g., \"what was the last thing you mentioned?\"). The conversation progresses logically through different aspects of the evaluation, maintaining topic coherence throughout. There are no instances where a speaker's response deviates from the current topic or introduces irrelevant information.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth flow of conversation. There are two instances of brief overlaps (00:13-00:14, and 00:34-00:35), where Speaker B begins speaking just before Speaker A finishes their sentence. However, these overlaps are very short (approximately 1 second each) and do not disrupt the conversation flow or cause communication breakdown. They appear to be natural instances of active listening and engagement, where Speaker B anticipates the end of Speaker A's point or interjects to acknowledge or ask a clarifying question promptly. The prompt explicitly states that \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these examples fall into that category, not being \"prolonged\" or \"harmful.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--533",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hi Bob!\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Hi Alice! How are you?\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm doing really well! I just tried playing a bunch of music on my new keyboard\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: Really? What kinds of songs were you playing?\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A: I was playing a C major scale on my piano. I know it's been a while since I've practiced, but it was fun to play some of my favorites.\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker B: Do you play an instrument besides piano?\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker A: I play the flute, as well as the violin,\n[00:23 - 00:25] Speaker B: That's cool! Do you have any other hobbies?\n[00:26 - 00:34] Speaker A: Yes, I also enjoy painting and hiking. By the way, I didn't get to finish telling you, I play the flute as well as the piano.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains topic coherence, moving from playing music on a keyboard/piano to other instruments and then to other hobbies. However, there is a significant issue in logical consistency at the end. At [00:20 - 00:24], Speaker A states, \"I play the flute, as well as the violin\". Later, at [00:26 - 00:34], Speaker A says, \"By the way, I didn't get to finish telling you, I play the flute as well as the piano.\" This is a direct contradiction of the prior turn where the information was already provided. It makes Speaker A's response seem confused or forgetful of the ongoing conversation, breaking logical consistency and topic coherence within their own turns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are two instances of overlapping speech in the transcript.\n1.  [00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B starts speaking at 0:07 while Speaker A finishes at 0:08, resulting in a 1-second overlap.\n2.  [00:23 - 00:25] Speaker B starts speaking at 0:23 while Speaker A finishes at 0:24, also resulting in a 1-second overlap.\n\nWhile not extremely prolonged, these 1-second overlaps are noticeable and occur twice in a short conversation. They suggest that the speakers are occasionally cutting each other off or anticipating the end of the other's turn a bit too quickly, which detracts slightly from the natural, smooth flow of conversation. However, there are no long pauses between turns. The overlaps are not severe enough to be a major impediment, but they are not \"brief\" either and are consistent, indicating a slight issue with turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--502",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey, so, I was in history class and we learned about Vichy France during World War II.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: Really? What did you learn?\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: We talked about how the Vichy government cooperated with the Nazi government.\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker B: That's really interesting. I wonder why they would choose to\n[00:14 - 00:25] Speaker A: Actually, I think it was because the Vichy government was in northern France so they couldn't stop the Nazis from coming in. So instead, the government surrendered to the Nazis.\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker B: That makes sense. But I wonder how many people knew what was really happening behind\n[00:28 - 00:39] Speaker A: Oh, I was going to say, how many people knew what was really going on is a good question. I think a lot of the population might have been kept in the dark about the extent of the cooperation.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly follows from or builds upon the previous one.\n- Speaker A introduces a topic (Vichy France).\n- Speaker B asks a relevant follow-up question.\n- Speaker A provides information.\n- Speaker B poses a 'why' question, and Speaker A immediately provides a logical explanation, even though Speaker B's sentence was cut off. Speaker A clearly anticipated or understood the implied question.\n- Speaker B introduces a new, but related, query about public awareness.\n- Speaker A directly addresses this new query, even completing Speaker B's thought (\"Oh, I was going to say, how many people knew what was really going on is a good question\").\nThe conversation flows naturally from one point to the next, maintaining coherence on the topic of Vichy France and its implications.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good, though it features brief overlaps.\n- `[00:14 - 00:25] Speaker A:` overlaps `[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker B:`. This is a 1-second overlap where Speaker A begins speaking before Speaker B finishes. However, Speaker A's subsequent statement directly addresses the implicit question Speaker B was posing (\"why they would choose to\"), suggesting an eager and engaged speaker rather than a disruptive one.\n- `[00:28 - 00:39] Speaker A:` overlaps `[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker B:`. This is another 1-second overlap. Crucially, Speaker A immediately acknowledges and even completes Speaker B's thought (\"Oh, I was going to say, how many people knew what was really going on is a good question\"). This demonstrates high engagement and natural conversational rhythm, where one speaker anticipates and jumps in, often in agreement or to elaborate on the other's point.\nNeither of these overlaps are \"extended\" or \"prolonged\"; they are brief. There are no long pauses. The brief, anticipatory overlaps indicate a highly engaged and natural conversation, which is acceptable and often indicative of good fluency rather than poor.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--231",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Have you been to Australia?\n[00:02 - 00:02] Speaker B: No, I haven't.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker A: Would you like to go there?\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: Yes. I'd love to go there. I'd really like to see the Great Barrier Reef. My friends tell me the fish there are incredibly colorful\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A: Speaking of the Great Barrier Reef, do you know if it's better to visit during a specific season? I'm planning a trip myself.\n[00:18 - 00:26] Speaker B: Oh, good question! I think the best time is between June and October. But I was just saying that the fish there are incredible, according to my friends.\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: Oh, right! I've heard that too. Do you know if there are any specific spots within the reef that are must-sees?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n\n*   **[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Have you been to Australia?** - Introduces the topic clearly.\n*   **[00:02 - 00:02] Speaker B: No, I haven't.** - Direct and relevant answer.\n*   **[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker A: Would you like to go there?** - Logical follow-up question.\n*   **[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: Yes. I'd love to go there. I'd really like to see the Great Barrier Reef. My friends tell me the fish there are incredibly colorful** - Answers the question and elaborates, introducing a sub-topic (Great Barrier Reef) naturally.\n*   **[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A: Speaking of the Great Barrier Reef, do you know if it's better to visit during a specific season? I'm planning a trip myself.** - Speaker A skillfully picks up on Speaker B's last point, demonstrating active listening and topic coherence. The phrase \"Speaking of...\" explicitly links the turns.\n*   **[00:18 - 00:26] Speaker B: Oh, good question! I think the best time is between June and October. But I was just saying that the fish there are incredible, according to my friends.** - Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's question about the best time to visit. The latter part, \"But I was just saying that the fish there are incredible, according to my friends,\" is a slight re-iteration of a previous point. While it's a bit redundant, it doesn't break topic coherence or logical consistency. It feels like Speaker B is keen on emphasizing that specific detail.\n*   **[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: Oh, right! I've heard that too. Do you know if there are any specific spots within the reef that are must-sees?** - Speaker A acknowledges Speaker B's re-iteration (\"Oh, right! I've heard that too\") and then smoothly continues their line of inquiry about planning their trip to the Great Barrier Reef, asking a relevant follow-up question.\n\nOverall, the conversation flows very well, with each turn building logically on the previous one. The minor re-iteration by Speaker B doesn't significantly detract from the coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good, with only one brief, acceptable overlap.\n\n*   **[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A:** No pauses.\n*   **[00:02 - 00:02] Speaker B:** No pauses.\n*   **[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker A:** No pauses.\n*   **[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B:** No pauses.\n*   **[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A:** There is a 1-second overlap (from 00:10 to 00:11) where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. As per the instructions, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" A 1-second overlap is brief and can occur naturally in an enthusiastic conversation, especially when one speaker picks up on a keyword from the other. It's not a prolonged or harmful overlap.\n*   **[00:18 - 00:26] Speaker B:** No significant pauses or overlaps.\n*   **[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A:** No significant pauses or overlaps.\n\nThere are no long pauses detected. The turns are generally timely and contribute to a natural conversational rhythm. The single brief overlap is within acceptable limits.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--125583",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: It's so nice to have some time alone in nature. I love the smell of the flowers and the sound of the birds It's like\n[00:06 - 00:14] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I just realized, have you ever thought about bringing a sketchbook or something? This place seems perfect for drawing or writing.\n[00:14 - 00:29] Speaker A: That's a great idea! I usually just come to relax, but bringing a sketchbook could be a new way to enjoy it. I always feel so happy and content when I'm here by myself. It's like everything else just melts away and I can just be in the moment.\n[00:30 - 00:33] Speaker B: That sounds wonderful. I'm glad you have a place that brings you peace.\n[00:34 - 00:40] Speaker A: Yeah, me too. I feel so lucky that I live close to this park. It's like my own personal oasis.\n[00:41 - 00:47] Speaker B: Well, you definitely deserve it after all the hard work you put in. You deserve to have a place where you can recharge and\n[00:46 - 00:53] Speaker A: Just be myself? Yeah, exactly. Thank you, that means a lot. I'm really lucky to have you as a friend.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance throughout. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, demonstrating deep understanding and engagement with the ongoing conversation.\n- Speaker A introduces the topic of enjoying nature.\n- Speaker B, despite an acknowledged interruption, offers a relevant and creative suggestion (sketchbook) that fits the context Speaker A described. This shows active listening and an attempt to contribute constructively.\n- Speaker A directly responds to and appreciates Speaker B's suggestion, then expands on their personal feelings of peace, maintaining topic coherence.\n- Speaker B validates Speaker A's feelings, showing empathy and keeping the emotional tone consistent.\n- Speaker A expresses gratitude and elaborates on the significance of the place.\n- Speaker B offers a supportive and understanding comment, linking Speaker A's hard work to their deserving of peace. This is logically consistent with a supportive friendship.\n- Speaker A completes Speaker B's sentence (\"Just be myself?\"), which is a strong indicator of shared understanding and high logical consistency within the conversation, demonstrating they are perfectly aligned in thought.\nThe conversation maintains a clear topic and builds upon each other's contributions in a very natural and coherent manner.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses that disrupt the flow of conversation. The two instances of overlap are brief and contribute to the naturalness and intimacy of the dialogue rather than detracting from it.\n- **[00:06 - 00:14] Speaker B:** Overlaps with Speaker A's ongoing thought at [00:06 - 00:07]. Speaker B explicitly apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating awareness and politeness. This is a very brief (1 second) and acknowledged overlap, which is common and acceptable in natural conversation, showing eagerness to contribute.\n- **[00:46 - 00:53] Speaker A:** Overlaps with Speaker B's concluding thought at [00:46 - 00:47]. Speaker A completes Speaker B's sentence (\"Just be myself?\"). This type of collaborative overlap is a hallmark of highly fluent and synchronous conversation, especially between close individuals like friends. It indicates strong mutual understanding and anticipation, and is not a harmful interruption but rather a co-construction of meaning.\nNeither overlap is prolonged, and both are contextually appropriate, enhancing the perceived fluency and naturalness of the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--411",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Are you interested in a new appliance? I've been thinking of buying an air fryer.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: Yeah, I guess that would be a good investment.\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: I saw this one called the T-fal ActiFry Advanced. What do you think about\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but do you know if it has any special features compared to other models?\n[00:17 - 00:26] Speaker A: Yes, it has some unique features like a stirring paddle for even cooking. However, I haven't checked if it has a large enough capacity for preparing meals\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker B: Capacity is important, but I'm also curious about its energy efficiency. Do you have any information on that?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A introduces the topic of buying an air fryer and a specific model. Speaker B's responses consistently build upon or ask relevant questions about the appliance, such as features, capacity, and energy efficiency. Each turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining a focused discussion on the air fryer. There are no instances where a speaker deviates from the topic or provides an irrelevant response.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. There are two brief overlaps detected:\n1.  `[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B:` overlaps `[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A:` for 1 second. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which makes it a natural and acceptable conversational interruption.\n2.  `[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker B:` overlaps `[00:17 - 00:26] Speaker A:` for 1 second. This is a brief overlap that could indicate eagerness to respond, and given its short duration (1 second), it falls under the \"brief overlaps...are acceptable\" guideline provided in the instructions.\n\nOverall, these are not extended or prolonged overlaps, and they do not hinder the flow or understanding of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--407",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hi!\n[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker B: How are you doing?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm doing great! Do you invest?\n[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker B: I do some investing, mostly in the stock market. I'm a shareholder in IBM, Disney, Amazon, and some other big companies.\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: Oh, interesting. How do you learn about investments?\n[00:17 - 00:20] Speaker B: I read a lot of books on the stock market and look at financial data.\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker A: That's really cool. How much do you invest?\n[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker B: I have a $100,000 portfolio.\n[00:27 - 00:29] Speaker A: Oh wow! What are you planning to do with it?\n[00:30 - 00:32] Speaker B: I use some of it to pay off my mortgage.\n[00:32 - 00:35] Speaker A: That's really smart. Do you invest?\n[00:36 - 00:40] Speaker B: Not really, but I'd like to get into the stock market. Do you have any advice?\n[00:40 - 00:42] Speaker A: Yeah, read a lot of financial books.\n[00:43 - 00:46] Speaker B: I love learning new skills. It seems like a great way to make money.\n[00:47 - 00:53] Speaker A: Definitely! You should also work with a financial advisor to figure out a good plan for your finances.\n[00:54 - 00:56] Speaker B: I'll make sure to do that. How much do you invest?\n[00:57 - 00:59] Speaker A: I have a $10,000 portfolio.\n[00:59 - 01:01] Speaker B: That's a nice amount! What do you do with it?\n[01:02 - 01:05] Speaker A: I use it to invest in a few stocks that I think will perform well\n[01:04 - 01:10] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but could you share which books you found most helpful? I'm really keen to start off on the right foot.\n[01:11 - 01:24] Speaker A: Oh, sure! I can recommend a few titles like \"The Intelligent Investor\" by Benjamin Graham and \"Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits\" by Philip Fisher. But back to my investments, I think those stocks will pay off in the future.\n[01:24 - 01:29] Speaker B: That's really interesting. Are there any companies that you've heard of that you think have a promising future?\n[01:30 - 01:39] Speaker A: Well, I think that Apple will grow. They've invested heavily in artificial intelligence and other research fields, so I'm excited about the future!\n[01:39 - 01:45] Speaker B: That's true - it sounds like Apple is on a great trajectory. Have you done any investing yet?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue shows significant issues.\n1.  **[00:32 - 00:35] Speaker A: That's really smart. Do you invest?** Speaker A asks Speaker B \"Do you invest?\" This question is redundant and illogical as Speaker B has already clearly stated they invest (00:05-00:13) and detailed their portfolio and its use (00:24-00:32). This indicates a lack of memory or contextual awareness on Speaker A's part.\n2.  **[00:36 - 00:40] Speaker B: Not really, but I'd like to get into the stock market. Do you have any advice?** Speaker B's response \"Not really\" directly contradicts all their previous statements about being a shareholder in major companies and having a $100,000 portfolio. This is a severe logical inconsistency and a major breakdown in topic coherence.\n3.  **[01:39 - 01:45] Speaker B: That's true - it sounds like Apple is on a great trajectory. Have you done any investing yet?** Speaker B asks Speaker A \"Have you done any investing yet?\" This is another significant logical inconsistency. Speaker A has already explicitly stated they have a $10,000 portfolio (00:57-00:59) and how they use it (01:02-01:05, 01:11-01:24). This redundancy indicates a failure to maintain a coherent conversational state.\n\nThese issues demonstrate a clear lack of logical consistency and topic coherence, as both speakers forget or contradict previously established facts within the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally appropriate.\n1.  **Pauses:** Most pauses between speaker turns are brief (1-2 seconds) or non-existent, which is natural for a dynamic conversation. There are no long, unnatural pauses that disrupt the flow.\n2.  **Overlaps:** There are several brief overlaps (e.g., 00:00, 00:13, 00:32, 00:59, 01:24, 01:39). One explicit overlap occurs at **[01:04 - 01:10] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in...** where Speaker B acknowledges interrupting Speaker A. This type of brief, natural overlap, especially when explicitly acknowledged, is acceptable and contributes to the realism of the interaction rather than harming fluency. There are no extended or disruptive overlapping turns.\n\nOverall, the timing and turn-taking in the dialogue are natural and do not present issues in interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--461",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hello! I'm now trying to take a bath, but there are too many buttons, would you tell me how to use them?\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: I see, we have an explanation left on the table. If you follow the direction, it's quite straightforward and\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: I tried reading it, but I couldn't understand it. Could you come to my room and show me how to use them?\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker B: Oh, certainly. By the way, the instructions on the table—were they in a language you could read? If not, I can bring a translated version with me.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A clearly states the problem and asks for help. Speaker B offers a relevant first solution. Speaker A then logically explains why that solution isn't sufficient and proposes a more direct alternative. Speaker B acknowledges this request (\"Oh, certainly\") and further demonstrates helpfulness and problem-solving by asking a clarifying question about the instructions' language and offering a translated version. Each turn builds coherently on the previous one, staying focused on the topic of resolving the bath button issue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction shows good fluency. There are brief, natural pauses between turns (e.g., 1-second pause at [00:05-00:06] and [00:15-00:16]), which are acceptable and do not hinder the flow. There is a brief overlap of 1 second between Speaker B's turn ending at [00:11] and Speaker A's turn starting at [00:10]. This kind of brief overlap, where Speaker A cuts in to immediately address Speaker B's suggestion, is common in natural conversation and indicates engagement rather than a breakdown in fluency. It is not an \"extended overlap\" and does not appear harmful to the conversation's quality.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--144483",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey Jake, how's it going?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Good, man. How are you?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm good. I've been training hard lately and I really want to win my next fight.\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B: I can understand that. Why do you want to win so badly? Is\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but it's just that I've been feeling this intense pressure to prove something to myself.\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker B: What is it that you need to prove?\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker A: That I'm good at martial arts.\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker B: Why do you feel like you need to prove it so\n[00:23 - 00:31] Speaker A: You know, it's not just about proving it to others—it's about proving it to myself. It's like this inner drive I can't shake off.\n[00:32 - 00:35] Speaker B: Okay, well I wish you the best of luck.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A introduces a personal goal (winning a fight), and Speaker B consistently asks relevant follow-up questions (\"Why do you want to win so badly?\", \"What is it that you need to prove?\", \"Why do you feel like you need to prove it so?\"). Speaker A's responses directly address these questions, delving deeper into their motivations and inner drive. The topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on Speaker A's martial arts aspirations and the underlying psychological pressure. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or illogical jumps in conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is also excellent, mimicking natural conversation. There are two instances of brief overlaps, which are explicitly stated as acceptable in the guidelines (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\").\n1.  At [00:12], Speaker A interrupts Speaker B (\"Sorry to jump in, but...\"). This is a brief, acknowledged interruption that adds to the natural feel of the dialogue, showing eagerness from Speaker A.\n2.  At [00:23-00:24], Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their question (\"Why do you feel like you need to prove it so\"). This is a brief 1-second overlap. These types of brief overlaps are common in spontaneous speech and do not hinder the flow or comprehension of the conversation.\nThere are no prolonged pauses between turns, with transitions occurring smoothly. The timing between turns, even with the small pauses (e.g., 1-second gap between A's initial greeting and B's reply), feels very natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--90594",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I want to know what happened here. I demand an investigation.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: We're already investigating, ma'am.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: I'm not satisfied with that. I want a more\n[00:09 - 00:20] Speaker B: Ma'am, I completely understand your frustration, but can you tell me if there's any specific detail you're particularly concerned about? It might help us focus our investigation more effectively.\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker A: I appreciate that, but I want to know what happened to my husband.\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker B: I'm sorry for your loss, ma'am. But we're doing everything we can to find out what happened.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates with a clear demand for an investigation, to which Speaker B responds directly by stating an investigation is already underway. When Speaker A expresses dissatisfaction, Speaker B's extended turn at [00:09 - 00:20] is particularly well-crafted: it acknowledges Speaker A's frustration empathetically, then attempts to guide the conversation towards specific details that could aid the investigation, showing a clear intention to be helpful and constructive. Speaker A's subsequent response, clarifying their primary concern about their husband, is also relevant, bringing the conversation back to the personal impact. Speaker B's final response acknowledges the loss and reiterates commitment, maintaining the empathetic and professional tone. There are no irrelevant diversions or logical inconsistencies; the conversation flows naturally with each speaker building upon the previous turn.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses that disrupt the flow of the conversation. The only instance of an overlap occurs between [00:09 - 00:10], where Speaker A's \"I want a more\" is briefly overlapped by Speaker B starting their turn. This overlap lasts approximately 1 second. As per the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This is a brief overlap, not an extended one, and it does not significantly impede understanding or the natural flow of the dialogue. It sounds like a natural, albeit slightly eager, interjection from Speaker B to address Speaker A's rising dissatisfaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--574",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey there, how are you doing?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: I'm doing well! I just got back from a very cool trip to Hawaii, actually.\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker A: That's awesome, Hawaii sounds wonderful! Do you have any travel plans coming up?\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: Well, it's so hard to get away. This year I'm thinking about visiting Japan during\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: Jamaica sounds amazing! But I was wondering, have you considered the best time of year to visit?\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker B: That's a good point. I haven't really looked into the best season yet. Actually, I was also thinking about the budget for the trip and how much\n[00:28 - 00:36] Speaker A: Speaking of budget, have you checked if there are any special deals or discounts available for flights and accommodations?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with good response relevance. Speaker B answers Speaker A's greeting and shares a relevant update. Speaker A then smoothly transitions to future travel plans. However, a significant issue arises at [00:15 - 00:21] where Speaker A misinterprets \"Japan\" as \"Jamaica\". This breaks logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B had clearly stated \"Japan,\" and Speaker A's response is based on an incorrect premise. While Speaker B manages to respond to the subsequent question about \"best time of year\" (which could apply to Japan), the initial mishearing is a clear flaw in understanding and responding appropriately. Speaker A's final turn [00:28 - 00:36] picks up on \"budget\" from Speaker B's interrupted thought, which shows some attempt at relevance, but the overall consistency is marred by the earlier misinterpretation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is significantly impacted by extended overlaps.\n1.  **[00:15 - 00:21]**: Speaker A starts speaking (\"Jamaica sounds amazing!\") while Speaker B is still mid-sentence (\"...Japan during\"). This is an extended overlap that prevents Speaker B from completing their thought and also introduces a misinterpretation, making it a harmful overlap.\n2.  **[00:28 - 00:36]**: Speaker A again starts speaking (\"Speaking of budget...\") while Speaker B is still in the middle of their sentence (\"...how much\"). This is another extended overlap, interrupting Speaker B and preventing them from completing their statement.\nThese two instances of prolonged overlapping turns clearly fall under the \"harmful\" category, indicating significant issues with interactional fluency. There are no notable long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--10426",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm so tired of my high energy bills. I'm going to start turning my clocks back so I can save some money by\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: Wait, turning your clocks back? How does that help with saving money on energy bills?\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: Well, it just means that I won't have to use as much electricity during the day. And that's good for the environment, too.\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker B: I hadn't thought of it that way. But you're right, saving energy is important. What else do you do to save energy around your house?\n[00:25 - 00:42] Speaker A: Well, I try to keep my thermostat at a reasonable temperature. In the summer, I'll set it a little higher than usual so that the air conditioner doesn't have to work as hard. And in the winter, I'll turn the heat down a bit so that the furnace doesn't have to run as often, which\n[00:40 - 00:46] Speaker B: Sorry, I just wanted to ask—how much of a difference does adjusting the thermostat actually make on your energy bills?\n[00:47 - 01:00] Speaker A: It can make a noticeable difference over time, especially if you're consistent with it. But I was also going to mention that if everyone made an effort to conserve energy, we could really make a difference in reducing our carbon footprint.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n1.  **Initial Premise and Challenge:** Speaker A's initial statement about \"turning clocks back\" to save energy is factually incorrect/nonsensical in the literal sense, but Speaker B's immediate response (\"Wait, turning your clocks back? How does that help?\") logically and relevantly questions this premise. This shows a direct engagement with the content.\n2.  **Speaker A's Justification and Topic Shift:** Speaker A attempts to justify their flawed logic (\"won't have to use as much electricity during the day\"). Speaker B, rather than dwelling on the factual error, gracefully pivots while maintaining topic coherence (\"But you're right, saving energy is important. What else do you do...?\"). This demonstrates flexible and coherent conversation management.\n3.  **Relevant Examples:** Speaker A provides highly relevant and practical examples of energy saving (thermostat adjustment) in response to Speaker B's question.\n4.  **Mid-Turn Follow-up:** Speaker B's interruption to ask for clarification (\"how much of a difference does adjusting the thermostat actually make?\") is directly related to Speaker A's ongoing explanation, maintaining logical consistency.\n5.  **Direct Answer and Broadening Topic:** Speaker A directly answers the follow-up question and then broadens the discussion to the collective impact of energy conservation, which is still highly coherent with the overarching theme of saving energy and its benefits.\n\nDespite Speaker A's initial misconception, the conversation flows logically, coherently, and adaptively, with both speakers contributing relevant turns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural and appropriate.\n1.  **Brief Overlap:** There is one instance of overlap between [00:40 - 00:46] (Speaker B) and [00:25 - 00:42] (Speaker A), where Speaker B interjects while Speaker A is still speaking. This overlap lasts for about 2 seconds (from 0:40 to 0:42). Crucially, Speaker B initiates this interjection with \"Sorry, I just wanted to ask—\", indicating awareness of the interruption. This type of brief, apologetic interjection is very common in natural conversation and does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap.\n2.  **No Long Pauses:** There are no instances of long, unnatural pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between speakers are smooth, with only brief, natural pauses (e.g., the 1-second pause before Speaker A's last turn at 0:47).\n3.  **Natural Cut-off:** Speaker A's first turn ends with a cut-off \"by\" which suggests a natural trailing off or being gently interjected upon, which is also a common feature of spontaneous speech.\n\nOverall, the conversational flow feels dynamic and natural, with appropriate pacing and turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--77881",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, Sarah! How are you doing today?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: I'm doing good, thank you. I'm excited for my piano lesson.\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: That's great! I'm excited to teach you today. Do you remember what we were practicing last\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: Oh, I think we were working on \"Heart and Soul,\" right?\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker A: Yes, we were working on a song called \"Heart and Soul.\"\n[00:18 - 00:19] Speaker B: I really liked that one!\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker A: I'm glad you did. Today, we are going to work on a new song called \"Twinkle Twinkle Little Star.\"\n[00:25 - 00:27] Speaker B: Oh, I know that one! Can we play it together?\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker A: Absolutely! Let's get started then.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement, ensuring a clear and coherent flow of conversation. For instance, Speaker A asks about the previous song, Speaker B correctly identifies it, Speaker A confirms, and then introduces a new song, which Speaker B reacts to appropriately. The entire conversation stays on topic, revolving around the piano lesson and song choices, demonstrating strong topic coherence. There are no instances of irrelevant or off-topic responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is very good. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  At [00:11], Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap ([00:11 - 00:12]).\n2.  At [00:25], Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This is also a 1-second overlap ([00:25 - 00:26]).\nThese brief overlaps are natural and common in fluid conversation, indicating engagement and enthusiasm rather than disruption. They are not \"prolonged overlaps\" as defined by the criteria.\n\nRegarding pauses, there are two brief pauses:\n1.  Between [00:19] and [00:20] (1-second pause).\n2.  Between [00:27] and [00:28] (1-second pause).\nThese are short, natural pauses that do not disrupt the flow and are not \"long pauses.\"\n\nOverall, the interaction feels very natural and fluent, with no detrimental issues in terms of prolonged pauses or extended overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--29965",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hi, Jayceon! I wanted to give you a present that would make you really happy, so I built you a playhouse!\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: Oh my gosh, thank you so much, Eshaan! I love it!\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker A: I'm glad you like it. I worked really hard on getting all\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: Oh, I can tell! It's so detailed and cozy. Can we go inside and play?\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker A: Of course! Let's go!\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker B: Wow, this is amazing! I love it!\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker A: I'm glad you do. I put a lot of work into it.\n[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker B: It shows! This is the best present ever! Thank you so much for\n[00:29 - 00:32] Speaker A: You're welcome! I just wanted to make you happy.\n[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker B: Well, mission accomplished!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and demonstrate excellent logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial reaction (\"Oh my gosh, thank you so much... I love it!\") is a perfectly logical and coherent response to receiving a present.\n- Speaker A's \"I'm glad you like it. I worked really hard on getting all\" is a natural follow-up to the expression of gratitude.\n- Speaker B's interruption with \"Oh, I can tell! It's so detailed and cozy. Can we go inside and play?\" directly addresses Speaker A's effort and introduces the next logical step in engaging with the gift.\n- Speaker A's \"Of course! Let's go!\" is a direct and enthusiastic answer to B's question.\n- Subsequent turns continue this pattern of direct, relevant responses, expressing continued delight, acknowledging effort, and confirming the success of the gift (e.g., \"It shows!\", \"This is the best present ever!\", \"Well, mission accomplished!\").\nThe conversation stays entirely focused on the playhouse and the shared experience of giving and receiving the gift. There are no abrupt topic shifts or illogical statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The conversation flows quickly and naturally, indicating active engagement from both participants.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - At [00:13 - 00:14], Speaker B begins \"Oh, I can tell!\" while Speaker A is still saying \"getting all\". This is a very brief (1-second) overlap, typical of excited or eager conversation where one speaker anticipates and jumps in, not a prolonged or harmful one.\n    - At [00:29 - 00:30], Speaker A begins \"You're welcome!\" while Speaker B is finishing \"so much for\". Again, this is a very brief (1-second) and common overlap, indicating natural turn-taking where one speaker anticipates the other's complete expression of thanks.\nThese brief overlaps do not hinder comprehension or disrupt the flow; rather, they contribute to the natural and lively feel of the conversation. There are no extended or prolonged overlaps that would be considered harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--234",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What do you think of my new suit?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: Not bad. It reminds me of the one I saw at the new department store last week. Did you get it there, or\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Actually, I got it in that big shopping center. Speaking of which, I wanted to ask you—\n[00:13 - 00:14] Speaker B: Wait, how much did it cost you?\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: It cost me only $150. But I was going to ask, why don't you think it's a good bargain?\n[00:21 - 00:29] Speaker B: Well, I don't think it's a good bargain because I saw something similar for less at that department store. Maybe you should have checked there first.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker A initiates the conversation about their new suit.\n- Speaker B provides a relevant, albeit slightly comparative, response and asks a follow-up question.\n- Speaker A answers B's question and attempts to bring back their own intended point, demonstrating an effort to maintain their conversational goal.\n- Speaker B's interruption to ask about the cost at [00:13] is a natural conversational digression, seeking more information about the previously mentioned item. While it momentarily interrupts A's flow, it's a common and understandable turn.\n- Speaker A addresses the cost question and then logically connects back to B's earlier implicit critique (\"Not bad\" combined with \"saw something similar for less\") by asking \"why don't you think it's a good bargain?\". This shows excellent understanding of the underlying meaning in B's previous turns.\n- Speaker B's final response directly answers A's question, reinforcing the previous point about finding similar items for less.\nThe conversation stays focused on the suit and its perceived value/cost throughout. There are no significant misunderstandings or off-topic remarks.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses observed (e.g., 1 second between [00:01] and [00:02], [00:12] and [00:13], [00:14] and [00:15]) are brief and natural, allowing for processing and turn-taking without awkward silences.\n- There are two instances of very brief overlaps:\n    - At [00:07], Speaker A starts immediately as Speaker B finishes their word \"or\". This is a very brief overlap, indicating eagerness to respond and is not disruptive.\n    - At [00:21], Speaker B starts immediately as Speaker A finishes their question \"bargain?\". This is also a very brief, almost simultaneous start, indicating responsiveness and engagement, and does not hinder understanding.\nAs per the criteria, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these examples fit that description. The dialogue flows naturally without any harmful interruptions or silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--484",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What's your working day like?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: I have a typical 9 to 5 job. Actually, I work a little longer than 9 to 5 most days when\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: Oh, do you get paid overtime for those extra hours?\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B: No, I don't. I get a bonus each month, depending on the value of the contracts I sign with clients. Do you have any breaks?\n[00:17 - 00:32] Speaker A: We have an hour-long lunch break from 12 to 1. We can take coffee breaks during the day. My boss doesn't mind, as long as we get our work done on time. My boss gets annoyed if we take coffee breaks. I suppose your job involves a lot of paperwork, doesn't it?\n[00:33 - 00:42] Speaker B: There's some paperwork, but most of the time we put any information onto computers. Then we can send information to each other by email or across the internal system,\n[00:41 - 00:47] Speaker A: Sorry, I just realized you mentioned working longer hours earlier—how often does that happen?\n[00:47 - 00:57] Speaker B: It happens a few times a week, especially when we're close to finalizing a big contract. But as I was saying, we send information across the network. Do you work in a cubicle?\n[00:57 - 01:00] Speaker A: Yes, I do. I don't like it very much.\n[01:01 - 01:03] Speaker B: I work in a cubicle too, but I don't mind it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speakers generally answer questions directly and elaborate appropriately.\n- Speaker B answers Speaker A's initial question about their working day and adds relevant detail.\n- Speaker A follows up directly on B's mention of working longer hours by asking about overtime.\n- Speaker B answers the overtime question, explains their compensation, and then asks a relevant follow-up question about breaks.\n- Speaker A responds to the break question and then transitions to a related work topic (paperwork). While the statement \"My boss doesn't mind, as long as we get our work done on time. My boss gets annoyed if we take coffee breaks\" is a bit confusing on its own (sounding contradictory), it's still within the context of work breaks and doesn't derail the conversation.\n- Speaker B responds directly to the paperwork question and elaborates on their work processes.\n- Speaker A recalls an earlier point made by B (\"working longer hours\") and asks for clarification, showing good active listening and topic recall.\n- Speaker B answers this question, attempts to return to their previous point (\"But as I was saying...\"), and then asks a new, related question about cubicles. This transition is a little abrupt but still maintains the overall topic of work environment.\n- Speaker A answers the cubicle question and expresses their opinion.\n- Speaker B responds to A's opinion by sharing their own, creating a direct comparison.\nOverall, the dialogue demonstrates logical consistency and strong topic coherence, with natural topic shifts within the broad theme of work life.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are no extended overlaps or prolonged pauses.\n- The overlaps identified (e.g., A starting at 0:06 while B finishes at 0:07, or A starting at 0:41 while B finishes at 0:42) are brief (around 1 second) and appear to be natural interruptions or eager turn-taking, which are acceptable as per the instructions (\"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\"). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the interruption with \"Sorry, I just realized...\" at 0:41, indicating an intentional, yet natural, overlap.\n- The pauses between turns (e.g., 0:09 to 0:10, 0:16 to 0:17, 0:32 to 0:33, 0:57 to 01:00) are all brief (1 second or less) and contribute to a natural conversational rhythm rather than indicating hesitation or awkwardness.\nThe conversation flows smoothly and naturally without any disruptive timing issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--79146",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: What's up, John? I haven't seen you in a while. How've you been?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: I've been good, man. How about you? You're looking pretty successful these days.\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: Yeah, things are going well. I just released my second album and it's doing really well on\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: Wait, your second album? I didn't even know you released the first one! How did that one do?\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker A: The first one did okay, but this second one is really taking off. I'm glad that people are enjoying it.\n[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker B: That's great, man! I knew you had it in you. What's the secret to your success?\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker A: There is no secret, really. I just work hard and try to put out the best music that I can, staying\n[00:36 - 00:41] Speaker B: Speaking of hard work, how do you balance everything? I mean, with the tours, recording, and all the promotion?\n[00:42 - 00:49] Speaker A: It's definitely a challenge, but I've got a great team that helps me manage it all. I just focus on making the music.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining a coherent conversation flow.\n- Speaker A's initial greeting is met with a relevant reciprocal greeting and observation by Speaker B.\n- Speaker A's reveal of a \"second album\" prompts a natural and relevant surprised follow-up question from Speaker B about the first album.\n- Speaker A's explanation of the first album's performance and the second's success is well-received by Speaker B, who then asks a pertinent question about the \"secret to success.\"\n- Speaker A's answer about hard work leads to Speaker B's coherent transition \"Speaking of hard work,\" and a relevant question about balancing the demands of a music career.\n- Speaker A's final response addresses this challenge directly.\nThere are no instances of topic shifts or illogical responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural and appropriate.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - [00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B starts at 0:14 while Speaker A finishes at 0:15. This is a 1-second overlap. This brief interjection from Speaker B (\"Wait, your second album?\") indicates enthusiasm and surprise, which is a common and natural characteristic of engaged conversation, rather than a disruptive overlap.\n    - [00:36 - 00:41] Speaker B starts at 0:36 while Speaker A finishes at 0:37. This is also a 1-second overlap. Speaker B's \"Speaking of hard work...\" is a natural conversational bridge, demonstrating active listening and a smooth transition to the next question.\n- Both overlaps are brief and contribute to the natural, dynamic feel of the conversation. They are not prolonged or harmful.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns that would disrupt the flow. The conversation proceeds smoothly and at a natural pace.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--144",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: You look so happy. Anything good happens?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Aha, yeah. My friend just dropped in from the United Kingdom.\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker A: Yeah, and?\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: I decided to put him up while he's here. We will have fun and I am going to invite him to give a speech at my lab.\n[00:15 - 00:16] Speaker A: Is he a professor?\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: Oh no. He is a Ph.D. student at the University of Edinburgh. He will graduate at the end of this year, and\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but do you know if he's planning to stay in academia after graduation?\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker B: Actually, he's still deciding between academia and industry. But I haven't told you about the topic of his speech yet —it's something\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker A: Right, I was just about to ask! What's the topic? I might want to attend too.\n[00:39 - 00:45] Speaker B: It's about multimodal text generation. He'll talk about generating summaries for videos and discourse modeling as well.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial response (0:03-0:07) directly answers Speaker A's opening question.\n- Speaker A's \"Yeah, and?\" (0:07-0:08) is a relevant prompt for elaboration.\n- Speaker B's explanation of putting up his friend and inviting him to give a speech (0:09-00:14) flows logically.\n- Speaker A's question about the friend's profession (0:15-0:16) is a natural follow-up to the mention of a \"lab speech.\"\n- Speaker B provides a clear answer and additional relevant details about the friend's academic status (0:16-0:22).\n- Speaker A's follow-up question about academia post-graduation (0:21-0:26) is highly relevant given the friend's Ph.D. student status and upcoming graduation.\n- Speaker B answers this question and then smoothly transitions back to the previously introduced topic of the speech (0:27-0:34).\n- Speaker A's eager response and question about the topic (0:33-0:38) confirm their engagement and the natural flow of the conversation back to the speech.\n- Speaker B then provides the requested details about the speech topic (0:39-0:45).\nThere are no instances of irrelevant replies or unexpected topic shifts that disrupt the conversation's logical flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses identified. The gaps between turns (e.g., 0:08-0:09, 0:14-0:15, 0:26-0:27, 0:38-0:39) are consistently around 1 second, which is natural and indicative of smooth turn-taking.\n- **Overlaps:** Two brief overlaps are present:\n    - **[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker A interrupts Speaker B.** This is a 1-second overlap (0:21-0:22). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the interruption with \"Sorry to cut in,\" which makes the overlap less disruptive and signals politeness and eagerness to ask a relevant follow-up question. This is a common and acceptable brief overlap in natural conversation, indicating active listening and engagement rather than a communication breakdown.\n    - **[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B.** This is also a 1-second overlap (0:33-0:34). Speaker A's phrase \"Right, I was just about to ask!\" indicates an enthusiastic anticipation of Speaker B's point, leading to a co-construction of the turn. This type of overlap is highly natural and cooperative, showing strong alignment and engagement between speakers. It does not appear harmful or prolonged.\nBoth overlaps are brief and contribute to the naturalness and lively pace of the conversation, rather than hindering it. They fall under the category of \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--70301",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm so excited to go on our walk! I love getting some exercise and enjoying the\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Sorry, before we head out, did you remember to bring some water? We might need it if we're out for a while.\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A: Oh, good point! I almost forgot. I'll grab a bottle. And as I was saying, I love getting fresh air during our walks too.\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B: Me too, Ryann. Walking is a great way to get some exercise and it's also a good way to bond with you.\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: I know, and I love spending time with you. Walking is just so much fun!\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker B: It definitely is. And like you said, it's great exercise for both of us. Let's get going!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the conversation's theme of going for a walk.\n- Speaker B's interruption about water, while a change in focus, is a highly relevant practical consideration before heading out for a walk, and Speaker A acknowledges its importance.\n- Speaker A then smoothly transitions back to their original point about enjoying fresh air, demonstrating strong topic coherence.\n- Subsequent turns continue to elaborate on the benefits and enjoyment of the walk (exercise, bonding, fun), maintaining a consistent and coherent topic throughout. There are no instances of irrelevant or off-topic remarks.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There is one brief overlap detected between [00:04 - 00:05], where Speaker B starts speaking just as Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This is a very short, natural overlap, common in conversational speech, and does not hinder understanding or flow.\n- There are no extended overlaps.\n- The pauses between turns are consistently short (typically 1 second or less), which contributes to a natural and dynamic conversation. For example, [00:09 - 00:10], [00:17 - 00:18], and [00:23 - 00:24] all show brief, natural gaps.\n- The conversation flows smoothly without any awkward silences or disruptive interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--50295",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I really enjoy spending time with you, Bailee. You're such good company, and\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: Sorry, Kamilah, I just wanted to say that I really appreciate you saying that. It means a lot to me too.\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker A: I feel like I can really be myself around you. You're easy to talk to and I always have a good time when we're hanging out\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B: I was just thinking, do you ever feel like we should plan more activities together? I mean, we always have such a good time.\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker A: That's a great idea! And by the way, I was going to say \"together.\" I feel the same way about you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is excellent.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B's initial interruption is an immediate and relevant response of appreciation to Speaker A's compliment. Speaker A then continues their compliment. Speaker B transitions smoothly from \"having a good time\" to suggesting \"planning more activities together\" as a natural extension of their positive experiences. Speaker A's final turn directly addresses Speaker B's suggestion and also seamlessly integrates the completion of their earlier interrupted thought (\"I was going to say 'together'\"), demonstrating strong recall and coherence.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The entire conversation remains focused on their positive relationship and shared enjoyment. There are no sudden topic shifts or irrelevant remarks. The dialogue flows naturally from mutual appreciation to a suggestion for enhancing their shared time.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, despite the presence of brief overlaps.\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There are two overlaps:\n    *   [00:03 - 00:05]: Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still talking (2-second overlap). Speaker B apologizes (\"Sorry, Kamilah\"), indicating awareness and making the overlap feel less like an interruption and more like an eager, polite interjection to express immediate appreciation. This type of brief overlap is common and natural in enthusiastic, friendly conversations.\n    *   [00:15 - 00:17]: Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still talking (2-second overlap). While Speaker B doesn't explicitly apologize here, the duration is brief. This overlap also contributes to the natural, engaged feel of the conversation, as Speaker B is eager to share a new thought that builds on the current positive sentiment. Neither overlap is prolonged or disruptive; they sound like natural, eager participation.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and smooth:\n    *   Speaker A finishes at 00:05, Speaker B starts at 00:03 (overlap).\n    *   Speaker B finishes at 00:09, Speaker A starts at 00:09 (no pause).\n    *   Speaker A finishes at 00:17, Speaker B starts at 00:15 (overlap).\n    *   Speaker B finishes at 00:21, Speaker A starts at 00:22 (1-second pause). This is a very brief and natural pause.\nOverall, the pacing is very natural and fluid, indicating high interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--390",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Good afternoon, what can I do for you?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yes, please. I would like to know something about the driving courses.\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Well, we have short full-time courses during the summer. Are you interested in enrolling in\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I can only attend on weekends. Do you have any courses that fit that schedule?\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker A: Then there are weekend courses. The course starts at 8:00 every Saturday and Sunday morning.\n[00:23 - 00:25] Speaker B: Sounds fine. What about the coaches?\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker A: We have very excellent coaches here and some of them have been teaching for 20 years.\n[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker B: Good. How many hours of training should I have each day?\n[00:35 - 00:39] Speaker A: 3 hours in the morning and 2 in the afternoon. It ends at 6:00 PM.\n[00:40 - 00:42] Speaker B: Then how many people share a training car?\n[00:42 - 00:46] Speaker A: Usually 3 and we have 2 coaches for each car.\n[00:46 - 00:54] Speaker B: Very good. I will have more chances to get trained. Oh, by the way, you mentioned something about full-time courses before. Could you tell me more about that?\n[00:55 - 01:03] Speaker A: Sure, the full-time courses are more intensive, usually running throughout the week, and are ideal for those who want to complete their training quickly.\n[01:04 - 01:05] Speaker B: Thanks for the information!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B initiates the conversation by asking about driving courses, and Speaker A provides relevant information. When Speaker B clarifies their specific availability (weekends), Speaker A immediately adjusts their offer to fit that schedule. Subsequent questions from Speaker B about coaches, training hours, and car sharing are all direct follow-ups related to the driving course details, and Speaker A provides precise and relevant answers.\n\nThe only point that might be considered slightly less direct is Speaker B's re-query about \"full-time courses\" at [00:46 - 00:54], after initially interrupting Speaker A to state they could *only* attend on weekends. However, this is not a logical inconsistency; rather, it's a request for additional information about a previously mentioned option, perhaps for comparison or general understanding, which Speaker A competently addresses. It doesn't derail the conversation or indicate a lack of understanding. Overall, the information flows logically and each turn builds coherently on the previous one, addressing the user's evolving needs and questions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns; the gaps between turns are consistently around 1 second, which is natural and allows for processing and turn-taking without feeling disruptive or awkward.\n\nThere is one brief overlap detected at [00:11 - 00:16] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is finishing their turn. This overlap is approximately 1 second long (Speaker A ends at 00:12, Speaker B starts at 00:11). This is explicitly noted as an \"interrupt\" by Speaker B, and given its brevity and function (to interject a critical constraint for clarification), it is a very natural and acceptable brief overlap, not a harmful \"extended overlap.\" It contributes to the natural flow of conversation by allowing Speaker B to promptly state their limitation. The rest of the dialogue proceeds smoothly with appropriate turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--131145",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, I'm quitting heroin. I just don't feel safe anymore.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Yeah, I don't blame you. That stuff is pretty dangerous. But what are you going to do to\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Actually, I haven't decided yet. I'm thinking maybe something a little less risky.\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker B: I see. Well, whatever you decide to do, just be careful. Drug addiction is a serious issue and it's not something to take lightly.\n[00:19 - 00:27] Speaker A: I know, and that's why I'm really trying to make a change. I'm just tired of feeling like I'm in danger all the time.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n- Speaker B's first response (\"Yeah, I don't blame you. That stuff is pretty dangerous. But what are you going to do to\") directly acknowledges Speaker A's statement about quitting heroin and its danger, and then poses a logical follow-up question regarding future plans.\n- Speaker A's second response (\"Actually, I haven't decided yet. I'm thinking maybe something a little less risky.\") directly answers B's implied question, maintaining topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's second response (\"I see. Well, whatever you decide to do, just be careful. Drug addiction is a serious issue and it's not something to take lightly.\") provides appropriate and consistent advice based on A's situation and the ongoing topic of drug addiction.\n- Speaker A's third response (\"I know, and that's why I'm really trying to make a change. I'm just tired of feeling like I'm in danger all the time.\") acknowledges B's advice and reiterates their commitment and original motivation, maintaining emotional and topical consistency.\nThe conversation flows logically, and each turn builds coherently on the previous one, staying focused on the central theme of quitting heroin and the challenges involved.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is highly natural and appropriate.\n- **Pauses:** There are small, natural pauses between turns (e.g., A ends at 00:03, B starts at 00:04; A ends at 00:12, B starts at 00:13). These are brief (1 second) and do not impede the flow of conversation. They are typical of human speech.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps (e.g., A starts at 00:07 while B is still speaking until 00:08; A starts at 00:19 while B is still speaking until 00:20). Both overlaps are approximately 1 second in duration. These are very common in natural, fluid conversation, often indicating active listening, anticipation, or quick responses, rather than disruptive overlapping. They do not constitute \"extended overlaps.\"\n- **Truncated speech:** Speaker B's first turn ends with \"to\" (00:08), implying \"to do\" or \"to deal with it.\" This truncation, often occurring when another speaker begins to talk, is also a naturalistic feature of spontaneous dialogue and doesn't hinder understanding.\nOverall, the pacing, turn-taking, and presence of small pauses and brief overlaps contribute to an excellent level of interactional fluency, simulating a very natural conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--432",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What can I do for you?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: I would like to look at some watches.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: May I show you the gold ones?\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: Pure gold ones, please.\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker A: OK. Here they are.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: What is the price for this model? It\n[00:10 - 00:20] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but before we go into the price, I should mention that we have a limited-time warranty offer on these watches. Would you be interested in hearing about that?\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker B: That sounds interesting, but I still need to know the price first.\n[00:24 - 00:25] Speaker A: One thousand yuan.\n[00:26 - 00:28] Speaker B: That's quite steep. Can you come down a little bit?\n[00:29 - 00:32] Speaker A: I'm afraid not. The price is very moderate.\n[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker B: It's rather more than I was thinking of paying.\n[00:35 - 00:46] Speaker A: We brought the price down only a few days ago. This is definitely a bargain. Oh, and about that warranty I mentioned earlier, it covers any manufacturing defects for up to two years.\n[00:47 - 00:48] Speaker B: OK. I'll take it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance.\n- **Logical Consistency:** The conversation flows naturally from initial inquiry to product viewing, price negotiation, and final purchase. Speaker A's attempt to upsell/inform about a warranty before stating the price (0:10-0:20) is a sales tactic, but it's logically consistent within the context of a sales interaction, and Speaker B's redirection back to the price (0:20-0:24) is also logical. The subsequent negotiation over price and Speaker A's re-emphasis on the warranty for value (0:35-0:46) are all coherent steps in a sales process.\n- **Topic Coherence:** The entire dialogue stays focused on the purchase of a watch, specifically discussing its type, price, and warranty. There are no sudden topic shifts or irrelevant statements. Each speaker's turn builds upon the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with natural pacing and minimal disruptive elements.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap identified:\n    - [00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: What is the price for this model? It\n    - [00:10 - 00:20] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but before we go into the price...\n    This overlap lasts for only 1 second (0:10-0:11) and is explicitly acknowledged and apologized for by Speaker A (\"Sorry to interrupt\"). This is a brief, natural, and managed interruption, which falls under the \"brief overlaps... are acceptable\" criteria, rather than being \"prolonged\" or \"harmful.\"\n- **Pauses:** The pauses between turns are short and natural, typically 1-2 seconds.\n    - [00:25] (end of A's turn) - [00:26] (start of B's turn): 1-second pause.\n    - [00:28] (end of B's turn) - [00:29] (start of A's turn): 1-second pause.\n    - [00:34] (end of B's turn) - [00:35] (start of A's turn): 1-second pause.\nThese short gaps are indicative of natural conversational rhythm, allowing for processing and turn-taking without feeling like prolonged silences. There are no \"long pauses\" detected that would disrupt the flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--78010",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, how was your day today?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: It was good. I got a lot done at work and then I went out with some friends for drinks after wrapping up\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker A: Oh, that reminds me—did you ever resolve that issue with your boss that you mentioned earlier?\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker B: Yes, we actually had a productive conversation today, which was a relief. After that, I went out with some friends for drinks.\n[00:18 - 00:22] Speaker A: That sounds like fun. Did you have a good time?\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker B: Yeah, it was great catching up with them. We laughed a lot and had some great conversations.\n[00:28 - 00:36] Speaker A: That sounds like exactly what you needed. It's important to relax and have fun sometimes too, especially after a long week at work.\n[00:36 - 00:42] Speaker B: Definitely. I'm really glad I went out tonight. Thanks for listening, it means a lot to me.\n[00:42 - 00:46] Speaker A: Of course, anytime. I'm always here for you, Raevyn.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speakers consistently address the previous turn's content, maintaining logical consistency. Speaker A demonstrates active listening and good recall by bringing up the \"boss issue\" after Speaker B mentions \"work,\" showing a connection to a previous conversation. Speaker B provides direct answers to questions and elaborates appropriately. The conversation flows coherently from a general inquiry about the day, to a specific work-related follow-up, and then back to the social aspect, all while maintaining a natural progression. There are no instances of abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the longest pause observed is a natural 1-second gap. There is one brief overlap at [00:06 - 00:07] where Speaker A begins speaking just as Speaker B is concluding a phrase. This is a very short overlap (approximately 1 second) and falls within the acceptable range of \"brief overlaps\" which contribute to natural conversational rhythm rather than hindering it. There are no extended or disruptive overlaps detected. The timing of turns is very natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--28",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hello, are you Muriel Douglas?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yes, and you must be James. It's nice to meet you at long last; I've\n[00:06 - 00:19] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but I just wanted to say how much we appreciate you agreeing to meet with us about the new account. My associate, Susan Kim, should be here any minute. Would you like something to drink while we're waiting?\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker B: No, thanks. I'm fine. Did you have a nice holiday?\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker A: Yes, I did. My family and I went to Tahoe to ski and the weather was great. How about you?\n[00:31 - 00:38] Speaker B: I stayed in L. A. and it was sunny the entire weekend. We spent most of the time at home but we did go see King Kong on Christmas day.\n[00:38 - 00:39] Speaker A: How did you like it?\n[00:40 - 00:46] Speaker B: It was better than I expected. But, you know, I think I would have enjoyed skiing in Tahoe even better. Do you go there often, or\n[00:45 - 00:52] Speaker A: Oh, before I forget, you mentioned your associate Susan would be joining us. Is she familiar with the details of the account as well?\n[00:53 - 01:01] Speaker B: Yes, Susan is well-versed in the account. But as I was saying, I don't go to Tahoe much. My wife doesn't like to ski. She prefers vacationing where it's warmer, like Hawaii.\n[01:02 - 01:08] Speaker A: I don't blame her. I really enjoyed it there when we went a few years ago. I'd like to go back sometime soon.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and topic coherence.\n1.  **[00:00-00:06] Initial greeting and identification:** Speaker B's response \"Yes, and you must be James. It's nice to meet you at long last; I've\" directly answers Speaker A's question and extends the greeting logically.\n2.  **[00:06-00:19] Purpose of meeting and offer:** Speaker A, despite cutting in, immediately transitions to the purpose of the meeting (\"appreciate you agreeing to meet with us about the new account\") and introduces relevant context (associate Susan, offering a drink). This is highly relevant to the established context of a business meeting.\n3.  **[00:20-00:23] Small talk initiation:** Speaker B's \"No, thanks. I'm fine. Did you have a nice holiday?\" is a common and natural way to initiate small talk before a formal discussion, showing social intelligence and interactional skill. It's relevant to a pre-meeting context.\n4.  **[00:23-00:30] Holiday discussion:** Speaker A responds directly to the holiday question, elaborates, and reciprocates, maintaining topic coherence.\n5.  **[00:31-00:38] Holiday details:** Speaker B provides details about their holiday, directly following the previous turn.\n6.  **[00:38-00:46] Movie follow-up and topic shift:** Speaker A's \"How did you like it?\" is a direct and logical follow-up to the mention of \"King Kong\". Speaker B answers and then naturally loops back to Speaker A's earlier mention of Tahoe, attempting to continue that line of conversation.\n7.  **[00:45-00:52] Business re-focus:** Speaker A's \"Oh, before I forget, you mentioned your associate Susan would be joining us. Is she familiar with the details of the account as well?\" is a relevant pivot back to the primary purpose of the meeting. The phrase \"before I forget\" explicitly signals a shift to an important, previously mentioned, and business-relevant topic.\n8.  **[00:53-01:01] Answering and resuming previous topic:** Speaker B answers the business question directly and then smoothly returns to the topic they were interrupted on (\"But as I was saying, I don't go to Tahoe much...\"). This shows excellent recall and desire to complete their thought, while still addressing the immediate question.\n9.  **[01:02-01:08] Continued social engagement:** Speaker A responds to Speaker B's resumed topic about vacation preferences, demonstrating continued engagement and conversational flow.\n\nOverall, the responses are consistently logical, coherent, and appropriate for the unfolding interaction. There are natural topic shifts and smooth transitions, indicative of a high level of relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, mirroring natural human conversation.\n1.  **[00:06] Brief Overlap (A cuts in on B):** Speaker B is cut off (\"I've\"). Speaker A immediately responds with \"Sorry to cut in, but I just wanted to say...\". This is a very common and natural occurrence in fluid conversation, where one speaker anticipates or interjects. The explicit apology from Speaker A mitigates any negative impact and indicates self-awareness, contributing to naturalness rather than hindering fluency. It is not an \"extended overlap.\"\n2.  **[00:45-00:46] Brief Overlap (A cuts in on B):** Speaker B is speaking (\"Do you go there often, or\") when Speaker A interjects with \"Oh, before I forget...\". This is another brief, natural overlap. Speaker A's phrasing \"Oh, before I forget\" signals an urgent or important thought, which often leads to slight overlaps in real-time conversation. Speaker B's subsequent response \"Yes, Susan is well-versed in the account. But as I was saying...\" demonstrates that the overlap did not disrupt the flow significantly, and they seamlessly picked up their previous thought. This is not a prolonged or harmful overlap.\n3.  **Pauses:** There are no instances of long or awkward pauses between speaker turns. The dialogue flows continuously and responsively, indicating a high level of interactional fluency. Turns are taken promptly and naturally.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--44462",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, mind if I work in next to you?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Nah, go ahead.\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: Thanks. I'm just trying to get some exercise before my day gets too busy and\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker B: What kind of exercise do you usually do?\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker A: Mostly cardio and some strength training. It helps me stay focused throughout the day. What about you?\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B: I'm a stay-at-home mom. It's hard to find time to work out when you're taking care of kids all day!\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker A: Yeah, I can imagine. Do you have any tips on how to stay motivated?\n[00:29 - 00:38] Speaker B: Well, for me, it's all about setting small goals. If I can just make it to the gym three times a week, then I feel like I've accomplished something meaningful\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker A: That makes sense. Do you find that setting those small goals helps you manage stress too?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency throughout.\n*   Speaker B's initial response \"Nah, go ahead\" (0:03-0:04) directly answers Speaker A's request.\n*   Speaker B's question \"What kind of exercise do you usually do?\" (0:08-0:10) directly follows Speaker A's mention of \"getting some exercise.\"\n*   Speaker A's detailed answer and reciprocal question (0:11-0:17) are perfectly relevant.\n*   Speaker B's explanation about being a stay-at-home mom (0:18-0:23) coherently answers Speaker A's implicit question about their exercise habits by explaining *why* they might differ.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up question \"Do you have any tips on how to stay motivated?\" (0:23-0:28) logically extends from Speaker B's difficulty finding time to work out.\n*   Speaker B's advice on \"setting small goals\" (0:29-0:38) is a direct and relevant answer to the motivation question.\n*   Speaker A's final question \"Do you find that setting those small goals helps you manage stress too?\" (0:37-0:42) builds directly on Speaker B's previous statement, exploring another potential benefit of the proposed strategy.\n\nThe topic coherence is maintained, with each turn building logically on the previous one, evolving from initial pleasantries to exercise habits, challenges, motivation, and related benefits. There are no abrupt topic shifts or inconsistent responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent fluency, indicative of a natural conversation.\n*   **Pauses**: There are small, natural pauses (e.g., 1 second between [0:02]-[0:03], [0:10]-[0:11], [0:17]-[0:18], [0:28]-[0:29]). These are brief and contribute to natural turn-taking rather than indicating hesitation or awkwardness. There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n*   **Overlaps**: There are a few brief overlaps:\n    *   [0:08-0:10] Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is finishing (1 second overlap).\n    *   [0:23-0:28] Speaker A begins speaking immediately as Speaker B finishes (0-second perceived overlap).\n    *   [0:37-0:42] Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is finishing (1 second overlap).\nThese overlaps are short (1 second or less) and appear to be instances of enthusiastic or engaged listening and turn-taking, where one speaker anticipates the end of the other's thought. They are not \"extended overlaps\" that would suggest interruption or talking over in a disruptive manner. The conversation flows smoothly and naturally.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--604",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I finally got my wife to watch Star Trek: Picard. It has so many interesting points to talk about.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Same! It makes for a great weekend watch. What else do you like to watch?\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker A: I love Battlestar Galactica.\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: That's so great! I have never seen it. Have you seen Picard or Star Trek Discovery?\n[00:17 - 00:30] Speaker A: I think I might like Star Trek Discovery. My partner and I started watching the first season but we didn't finish it. We'll have to start back up! Have you seen Picard? How would you describe its overall\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but do you think it's better to watch Discovery first before diving into Picard?\n[00:35 - 00:46] Speaker A: It really depends on your preference. Picard has a different tone and focuses more on character development. I was going to say it's a fun show! Do you prefer Picard or Discovery?\n[00:46 - 00:50] Speaker B: It depends on my mood! Do you know about the Picard fan film?\n[00:50 - 00:54] Speaker A: Yes! There's another one coming out as well.\n[00:54 - 00:57] Speaker B: I watched the teaser - so good! Are you a Trekkie?\n[00:58 - 01:05] Speaker A: I grew up on it. My dad was a huge Trekkie and I remember going on Star Trek cruises when I was younger.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout.\n- Speaker B's initial response \"Same! It makes for a great weekend watch. What else do you like to watch?\" directly acknowledges Speaker A's comment about Picard and then expands the topic naturally by asking about other shows.\n- Speaker A's mention of \"Battlestar Galactica\" directly answers B's question.\n- Speaker B then skillfully brings the conversation back to Star Trek by asking if Speaker A has seen \"Picard or Star Trek Discovery,\" which is relevant given the initial topic.\n- Speaker A's response about \"Discovery\" is coherent, even though it's cut short by an interruption.\n- Speaker B's interruption, \"Sorry to interrupt, but do you think it's better to watch Discovery first before diving into Picard?\", is highly relevant as it addresses a point that Speaker A was just discussing (starting \"Discovery\") and seeks clarification on watch order, which is a logical follow-up in a conversation about related TV shows.\n- Speaker A's answer to the interruption is direct and then attempts to redirect with a similar question (\"Do you prefer Picard or Discovery?\").\n- Speaker B's \"It depends on my mood! Do you know about the Picard fan film?\" answers A's question and introduces a new, but still highly relevant, sub-topic within the Star Trek universe.\n- The subsequent exchange about the fan film and being a \"Trekkie\" maintains perfect topic coherence, exploring personal connections to the franchise.\nThere are no instances of off-topic remarks or illogical jumps in conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses identified (e.g., [00:12 - 00:13], [00:34 - 00:35], [00:57 - 00:58]) are all 1-second in duration, which are considered small and acceptable.\n- There is one instance of an overlap: Speaker A is speaking until [00:30] while Speaker B starts at [00:29]. This is a 1-second overlap. Crucially, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which makes the overlap feel natural and polite rather than disruptive. This brief, acknowledged overlap is acceptable and contributes to the natural flow of a conversation, rather than detracting from it.\n- The conversation flows very smoothly without any awkward silences or disruptive interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--469",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Morgan, can I ask you a question?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Sure, what is it?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: I was just wondering if many Chinese people take their leftover food home from a restaurant.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: In most cities in China, doggie bags are quite uncommon.\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker A: What happens to all the leftover food?\n[00:15 - 00:16] Speaker B: It usually goes to the dump.\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker A: That seems like an awful waste! Why don't people order fewer dishes so that they don't have to throw so much away at the end of the meal?\n[00:25 - 00:33] Speaker B: Ordering a lot of food at restaurants is just a tradition in China. You know, in the past, people could not afford to eat out like they can but now,\n[00:32 - 00:38] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I'm curious, do people ever feel guilty about wasting so much food?\n[00:39 - 00:50] Speaker B: Some people do, but it's more about showing hospitality and generosity. However, I was going to say that today, people can afford to eat out more often, so ordering a lot of food is seen as a way to celebrate.\n[00:50 - 00:55] Speaker A: I guess that makes sense. I just think it would make more sense to take the leftovers home.\n[00:56 - 00:58] Speaker B: Well, if you want, you can take the leftovers home.\n[00:59 - 01:02] Speaker A: No, that's OK. You know what they say when in Rome...\n[01:03 - 01:07] Speaker B: I was impressed that you tried the pig's feet. I heard that many foreigners don't like to eat them.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence throughout most of the conversation. Speaker A's questions and follow-ups are always directly related to the previous statement or the overarching theme of Chinese eating customs and food waste. Speaker B's responses are direct answers to Speaker A's questions or explanations for the cultural practices discussed. A notable strength is Speaker B's ability to gracefully handle Speaker A's interruption at [00:32]. Speaker B first answers the new question posed by A, and then seamlessly returns to the point they were making before the interruption (\"However, I was going to say that today...\"). This demonstrates excellent conversational management and logical flow.\n\nThe only slight deviation occurs in Speaker B's very last turn [01:03 - 01:07]. Speaker B shifts the topic from the discussion of leftovers and cultural norms around food *waste* to Speaker A's experience trying pig's feet. While still related to Chinese food and culture, it's a distinct sub-topic shift rather than a direct continuation of the previous point about handling leftovers. However, this is a very common and natural way for conversations to evolve and does not break the overall coherence or relevance of the interaction. It's a slight re-direction, not a random, irrelevant jump. Overall, the responses are consistently relevant and the conversation maintains a clear logical thread.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no extended overlaps where speakers talk over each other for prolonged periods. The only instance of overlap occurs at [00:32], where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. This is a brief overlap (about 1 second: 00:32-00:33), and Speaker A immediately acknowledges it with \"Sorry to interrupt.\" This type of brief, acknowledged interruption is a very natural aspect of spontaneous conversation and does not indicate poor fluency; rather, it often shows engagement. There are also no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth and timely back-and-forth exchange. The conversation flows naturally and responsively.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--81",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hello. Is this ABC Rent-a-car Company?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Yes, speaking. May I help you?\n[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker A: This morning we rented a car and we are on the way to Niagara Falls. I'm afraid we have a car accident near the highway exit,\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker B: Oh no, are you and your friend okay?\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker A: I'm all right, but my friend is seriously injured. Will you call an ambulance and the police?\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B: OK. I'll do it right away, but can you tell me exactly where the accident happened near the border? Also, how did it happen? Was\n[00:27 - 00:36] Speaker A: Near the border, yes. We were making a turn when another car suddenly swerved into our lane. It was too late to avoid the collision.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n*   **Speaker B's initial response** (\"Yes, speaking. May I help you?\") is a direct and appropriate answer to Speaker A's opening question.\n*   **Speaker B's follow-up question** (\"Oh no, are you and your friend okay?\") is a relevant and empathetic response to Speaker A's distressing news about a car accident, demonstrating concern for the caller's well-being before delving into operational details.\n*   **Speaker B's commitment and subsequent questions** (\"OK. I'll do it right away, but can you tell me exactly where the accident happened near the border? Also, how did it happen? Was\") are highly logical and necessary steps after being asked to call emergency services. The question about location and cause is crucial for assisting effectively. The mention of \"near the border\" connects logically to Speaker A's earlier statement about being on the way to \"Niagara Falls\", implying a potential border proximity.\n*   **Speaker A's final response** directly addresses Speaker B's questions about location and how the accident happened, maintaining topic coherence.\n\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses, contradictions, or tangents. The conversation flows naturally with each turn building logically on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates good conversational fluency, with only brief, natural overlaps and small pauses, which are explicitly stated as acceptable.\n*   **[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B:** Speaker B starts immediately after Speaker A finishes at 00:03, indicating a seamless transition.\n*   **[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker B:** There is a 1-second overlap where Speaker B starts speaking at 00:12 while Speaker A is still finishing at 00:13. This is a brief overlap and appears natural in the context of Speaker B expressing immediate concern (\"Oh no, are you and your friend okay?\") upon hearing about the accident. It shows engagement rather than interruption.\n*   **[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B:** There is a 1-second pause (Speaker B starts at 00:21, Speaker A ended at 00:20). This is a small, natural pause, perhaps for processing or formulating the next steps.\n*   **[00:27 - 00:36] Speaker A:** There is another 1-second overlap where Speaker A starts speaking at 00:27 while Speaker B is still finishing at 00:28. This overlap is also brief and appears natural, as Speaker A is confirming the location (\"Near the border, yes.\") that Speaker B was just inquiring about, indicating active listening and a quick response.\n\nNone of the overlaps are extended, nor are any of the pauses prolonged. The timing generally indicates an engaged and responsive conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--25914",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Mayci. I'm sorry about your necklace.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Why are you sorry? You're the one who borrowed it\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: I know, I know. I was being careless and I didn't mean to.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: But you still lost it. It was my favorite necklace and it\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker A: I get it, and again, I'm really sorry. What can I do to make it up to you?\n[00:17 - 00:20] Speaker B: I don't know. This just really sucks for me right now.\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker A: Yeah, no kidding. Listen, if it makes you feel any better, I'll help you look for it tomorrow morning before school starts?\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker B: Alright, that would be helpful actually. Thanks, Griffin.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate high relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's initial apology is met by Speaker B's questioning \"Why are you sorry?\", which is a natural and logical reaction. Speaker A then acknowledges their fault and explains, which is directly relevant to B's query. As the conversation progresses, Speaker B expresses frustration about the lost necklace, and Speaker A acknowledges this while offering solutions (\"What can I do to make it up to you?\", \"I'll help you look for it tomorrow morning\"). Speaker B's \"I don't know. This just really sucks for me right now.\" is an authentic and relevant expression of emotion given the situation. Finally, Speaker B's acceptance of Speaker A's offer (\"Alright, that would be helpful actually. Thanks, Griffin.\") provides a logical conclusion to the interaction. The topic of the lost necklace and the associated emotions and actions remains coherent throughout, without any abrupt shifts or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are a couple of instances of brief overlaps, specifically:\n*   Speaker A starts at [00:04] while Speaker B finishes at [00:05] (1-second overlap).\n*   Speaker A starts at [00:11] while Speaker B finishes at [00:12] (1-second overlap).\nThese overlaps are brief and natural, not prolonged or disruptive. They convey a sense of immediacy and emotional engagement, particularly from Speaker A who is eager to apologize and make amends, or from Speaker B who is expressing continued frustration. They do not hinder comprehension or flow. There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns; the transitions are smooth and timely, reflecting a natural conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--559",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Are you a fan of Game of Thrones? I heard the last season was pretty dramatic.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: I never watched it. I have no interest in that type of show.\n[00:09 - 00:10] Speaker A: What do you like to watch?\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: I like stuff with more of an adventure focus. I saw a preview for a new movie called Adrift that looks really intense\n[00:16 - 00:26] Speaker A: Oh, Adrift! I heard about that one. Isn't it based on a true story? I'm always looking for new movies to watch, too. Let me know how the movie is when you get a chance.\n[00:27 - 00:29] Speaker B: No problem! Thanks again!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker A initiates a topic, and Speaker B provides a direct answer and a reason for their disinterest. Speaker A then appropriately shifts the conversation to Speaker B's preferences, leading to Speaker B introducing a movie. Speaker A's response to \"Adrift\" is highly relevant, showing recognition, asking a follow-up question, expressing shared interest, and making a relevant request. Speaker B's final response acknowledges Speaker A's request and naturally concludes the interaction. The topic coherence is maintained throughout, flowing logically from general TV shows to specific movie interests.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no extended overlaps; the single overlap identified (00:16-00:17) is brief (1 second) and natural, indicating active listening and turn-taking without disruption. The pauses between turns are consistently short (around 1 second each), which are natural conversational pauses and not prolonged or disruptive. This contributes to a smooth and natural flow of conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--79750",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Where are my car keys? I can't find them anywhere.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Maybe you left them in the car. Have you checked the\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: No, I haven't. I just looked everywhere else in the house and they're not here. I'm starting to get really worried.\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but if you're that worried, should we also check outside the house, like the driveway?\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker A: That's a good idea. But let's check the car first.\n[00:21 - 00:23] Speaker B: There you are! I told you we would find them.\n[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker A: Thank goodness. I was starting to freak out.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one and contributes to the central topic of finding the car keys.\n- Speaker B's initial suggestion is directly related to Speaker A's problem.\n- Speaker A's response builds on B's suggestion while providing more context about their search and emotional state.\n- Speaker B's follow-up suggestion addresses Speaker A's expressed worry and proposes another logical place to check.\n- Speaker A's subsequent turn acknowledges B's idea while reaffirming a plan, showing clear logical progression.\n- Speaker B's \"There you are!\" implies the successful finding of the keys, directly resolving the initial problem.\n- Speaker A's final utterance expresses relief, which is a consistent emotional response to the resolution of the earlier worry.\nThe conversation maintains topic coherence throughout and progresses naturally from problem identification to resolution.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There is a brief overlap between Speaker B ([00:03 - 00:06]) and Speaker A ([00:05 - 00:12]), where Speaker A starts speaking 1 second before Speaker B finishes. This is a brief overlap (1 second) and is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B later with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and politeness, making it natural and not harmful.\n- There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn at [00:17] and Speaker A's turn at [00:18]. This is a very short and natural pause, allowing for processing and turn-taking.\n- There is also a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn at [00:23] and Speaker A's turn at [00:24]. Again, this is a very brief and natural pause.\nNo extended overlaps or long pauses are detected. The timing feels natural and contributes to a smooth conversation flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--116771",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Hey, Jakobe. I came by because I noticed you've been acting really strange lately and I wanted to see if everything is alright with\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: What do you mean? I'm fine.\n[00:09 - 00:18] Speaker A: Well, you've been really distant and preoccupied lately. And I was just wondering if there's something going on that you're not telling me because I'm\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker B: No, there's nothing going on. I'm just busy with work and stuff. Sorry if I've been ignoring you.\n[00:25 - 00:32] Speaker A: It's okay. I just want to make sure you're okay. So, if there's anything going on, you can tell me, right?\n[00:33 - 00:35] Speaker B: Yeah, of course. Thanks for caring, Josie.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates the conversation by expressing concern about Speaker B's unusual behavior. Speaker B responds by denying any issues, maintaining a consistent stance throughout the interaction, and later attributes their behavior to work. Speaker A then reiterates their concern and offers support, which Speaker B acknowledges with gratitude. The conversation follows a clear and understandable progression, with each speaker's turn logically connected to the previous one, focusing consistently on Speaker B's state and their relationship. There are no sudden topic shifts or contradictory statements from either party.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good, with some minor acceptable overlaps and no long pauses.\n\n*   **[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: What do you mean? I'm fine.** This turn starts at 00:07 while Speaker A is still speaking at 00:08. This is a very slight overlap, indicating active listening and a quick, natural response, which is common and acceptable in fluid conversation. It doesn't disrupt the flow or clarity.\n*   **[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker B: No, there's nothing going on. I'm just busy with work and stuff. Sorry if I've been ignoring you.** This turn starts at 00:17 while Speaker A is still speaking at 00:18. Again, this is a brief, minor overlap, suggesting an immediate reaction to Speaker A's inquiry. It's too short to be considered prolonged or harmful.\n\nThere are no long pauses between turns. The conversational rhythm feels natural and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--78",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm going to New York for the first time, but I don't have a tour guide. Can you give me any suggestions?\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: There's a service called 'A friend in New York'. It's a personal tour guide service.\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker A: That's interesting. What does it do?\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: You give them your information by answering a questionnaire and they will create a perfect trip based on\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but how detailed is this questionnaire? I want to make sure it covers all the places I'm interested in.\n[00:26 - 00:34] Speaker B: It's quite detailed! They ask about your interests, preferred activities, and even food preferences. But I was going to mention that they also consider your budget so they\n[00:34 - 00:38] Speaker A: Oh, that's important. Speaking of which, where can I get the questionnaire?\n[00:39 - 00:41] Speaker B: You can easily download it from their website.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance, logical consistency, and topic coherence.\n- Speaker A initiates with a clear request for tour guide suggestions for New York.\n- Speaker B provides a direct and relevant suggestion: 'A friend in New York'.\n- Speaker A's subsequent questions ('What does it do?', 'how detailed is this questionnaire?', 'where can I get the questionnaire?') are all directly related to the service Speaker B introduced and are logical follow-ups to gain more information.\n- Speaker B's answers consistently provide details about 'A friend in New York' that directly address Speaker A's inquiries.\n- The conversation remains focused on the suggested tour guide service, with each turn building upon the previous one without any deviation or inconsistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with some natural and brief overlaps that do not hinder communication.\n- There is an extended overlap from [00:18 - 00:25] where Speaker A interjects with \"Sorry to jump in, but how detailed is this questionnaire?\" while Speaker B is still speaking. This is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker A (\"Sorry to jump in\"), indicating a natural, albeit slightly longer, overlap that occurs when one speaker anticipates or urgently needs to ask a question. While it's an extended overlap, Speaker A's apology and the clarity of their question prevent it from becoming harmful.\n- There's another overlap from [00:34 - 00:38] where Speaker A interjects again with \"Oh, that's important. Speaking of which, where can I get the questionnaire?\" while Speaker B is still elaborating. This is also a natural interruption, indicating engagement and a follow-up question that comes to mind immediately.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth and continuous flow of conversation.\n- The overlaps, while extended, do not lead to confusion or a breakdown in communication; they feel like natural, eager interjections that move the conversation forward.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--188",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: No, no, you helped me with my computer last week. I want to repay the favor.\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: No, it's definitely my turn to treat you... you paid last time when\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: Oh, that was just a quick bite to eat --- that doesn't count!\n[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker B: I know, but I really insist this time. How about we just go Dutch? By the way, you mentioned something about finding the restaurant, right? I think\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker A: Yes, I was going to ask if you could find the restaurant since I'm still pretty new around here.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, addressing the immediate point being made or transitioning smoothly.\n- Speaker A initiates the topic of repaying a favor, to which Speaker B responds directly by countering that it's their turn to treat.\n- Speaker A then directly addresses Speaker B's point about paying last time by dismissing it as \"not counting.\"\n- Speaker B acknowledges Speaker A's point (\"I know\"), insists, and then proposes a compromise (\"go Dutch\").\n- The transition to \"finding the restaurant\" is introduced with \"By the way,\" indicating a slight but coherent shift to a related logistical aspect of their plan to go out. It's not an abrupt or illogical jump, as it's still within the context of their outing.\n- Speaker A then directly answers Speaker B's implicit question about the restaurant.\nThere are no instances of logical inconsistency or topic incoherence. The conversation flows naturally and builds upon previous statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There is a brief overlap between [00:08 - 00:09] where Speaker A interjects while Speaker B is speaking. This is a common and natural occurrence in dynamic conversations, especially when one speaker is keen to make a counter-point (\"Oh, that was just a quick bite to eat\"). This overlap is not extended (only 1 second) and does not hinder understanding or disrupt the flow.\n- There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and immediate, which contributes to a natural and engaging conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--289",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: The weather is really miserable. It has been raining hard all day and the\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but do you think the rain is going to let up soon?\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker A: Yes, I think so. The rainy season will be over soon. By the way, I was saying it's been raining hard all day long.\n[00:15 - 00:17] Speaker B: How long does the rainy season last?\n[00:17 - 00:18] Speaker A: About two months.\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: I can hardly stand these wet and cold days. It seems that it doesn't bother you very much, though.\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker A: Actually, I'm used to this kind of days. But I was curious, what makes you dislike cold weather so much?\n[00:30 - 00:31] Speaker B: I just prefer warm weather.\n[00:32 - 00:35] Speaker A: Spring will come soon. And we will have some pleasant weather then.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining topic coherence throughout the conversation about the weather.\n- Speaker B's initial interruption is immediately relevant to Speaker A's ongoing topic and is acknowledged with an apology.\n- Speaker A's response addresses Speaker B's question and then seamlessly loops back to their original point.\n- The subsequent questions and answers about the rainy season duration, dislike for cold weather, and preferences are all directly related and contribute to the natural progression of the conversation.\n- The final exchange where Speaker A offers a comforting thought about spring provides a natural conclusion to the weather-focused discussion.\nThere are no instances of off-topic remarks, misunderstandings, or illogical jumps in the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is also excellent.\n- There is a brief overlap from [00:03 - 00:04] where Speaker B cuts in, but this is explicitly acknowledged and apologized for (\"Sorry to cut in\"), making it a natural and appropriate part of the interaction rather than a disruptive one.\n- Another brief overlap occurs from [00:23 - 00:24], where Speaker A starts speaking just as Speaker B finishes. This is very common in natural conversation and does not hinder understanding or flow.\n- The pauses between turns are all very short (1 second or less), for example, [00:18 - 00:19], [00:29 - 00:30], and [00:31 - 00:32]. These are natural conversational pauses, allowing for processing and turn-taking without feeling like prolonged silences.\nThere are no long pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps. The conversation flows smoothly and naturally.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--641",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I want to go somewhere exciting this summer!\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: I feel like I might be at the same place all summer! I'm really bored.\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker A: Where would you like to go?\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B: There is a place I've been wanting to go to for years now. It's near Seattle. It has some beaches. You might have heard of\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: The beach? Do you have any pictures from there?\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: No, I don't. All of my phone photos are on my phone. I have no way of sharing those photos with you.\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker A: That's a bummer. Do you have any photos from Japan?\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker B: No. All of my photos are on my computer. Those are so big. Where should I store them\n[00:30 - 00:38] Speaker A: Email those? You should probably use a cloud service to share them. But wait, you mentioned a place near Seattle earlier. What was it called?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits generally good response relevance. Speaker B consistently answers Speaker A's questions and elaborates on their statements, such as describing the place near Seattle or explaining photo storage issues. Speaker A also generally follows up on Speaker B's points (e.g., asking for pictures after B mentions a place).\n\nHowever, there are two instances where Speaker A introduces abrupt topic shifts without clear transitions, which slightly impacts logical consistency and topic coherence:\n1.  At `[00:22 - 00:25]`, Speaker A suddenly asks \"Do you have any photos from Japan?\" after Speaker B just explained why they couldn't share photos from Seattle. There was no prior mention of Japan.\n2.  At `[00:30 - 00:38]`, after discussing photo storage solutions, Speaker A abruptly pivots back to the earlier topic with \"But wait, you mentioned a place near Seattle earlier. What was it called?\". While this mimics a natural thought process, it breaks the immediate flow of the conversation regarding photo storage.\n\nDespite these minor deviations, the conversation remains understandable, and the participants are mostly engaged with each other's turns. The issues are not \"significant\" enough to render the dialogue illogical or incoherent, but they do prevent it from being perfectly smooth in its topic progression.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is strong. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are generally immediate or involve only a brief, acceptable silence (e.g., 1 second between 0:25 and 0:26).\n\nThere are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  `[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A:` overlaps with `[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B:` for 1 second. Speaker A interjects \"The beach?\" right as Speaker B finishes mentioning \"beaches\". This is a common and natural form of active listening and interjection.\n2.  `[00:30 - 00:38] Speaker A:` overlaps with `[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker B:` for 1 second. Speaker A jumps in immediately after Speaker B asks \"Where should I store them\", offering a solution. This is also a natural, reactive overlap.\n\nBoth overlaps are brief (1 second) and indicative of active participation rather than disruptive interruptions. No extended overlaps or long pauses are detected, ensuring a natural and fluid conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--93540",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: It made you feel good, didn't it? You\n[00:01 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yeah, I guess so. But why does it have to be a window? Why can't we just break some plates or something?\n[00:07 - 00:18] Speaker A: Because breaking plates is too easy. With a window, you have to put some effort into it and really make a mess. Plus, the sound of the glass shattering is pretty satisfying, almost\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker B: Wait, but won't we get in trouble for this?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B's initial question (\"why does it have to be a window? Why can't we just break some plates or something?\") directly follows up on Speaker A's implied satisfaction from a previous action involving a window, demonstrating logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A's subsequent explanation about effort, mess, and sound directly addresses Speaker B's comparison between windows and plates. Finally, Speaker B's concern about \"getting in trouble\" is a highly logical and relevant follow-up given the context of discussing destructive acts. All turns are on-topic and flow naturally from one to the next.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are two brief overlaps detected:\n- Speaker A ends at 00:02, and Speaker B starts at 00:01, resulting in a 1-second overlap.\n- Speaker A ends at 00:18, and Speaker B starts at 00:17, resulting in a 1-second overlap.\nThese are short and common in natural conversation, indicating active listening and turn-taking without significant disruption. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses, which suggests a smooth and dynamic exchange between the speakers.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--470",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:10] Speaker A: I swear I will never shop at a street market in China. It's a terrible place full of excellent profiteers! You have to keep an eye whenever it comes to paying or else\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: Cool down, Harry! What are you really mad about? Did you get ripped off?\n[00:12 - 00:31] Speaker A: Yes. Last Sunday I went to a nearby market. It was an open-air fair. I chanced upon this bag and bought it on the spot, without even trying to strike a bargain. I paid one hundred and twenty. And just now I was told by my Chinese colleagues I bought it overpriced. I could have talked my way to a much\n[00:30 - 00:52] Speaker B: Thirty? Wow, that's quite a difference. I'm afraid people here will not take pity on unlucky guys like you. Bargaining has always been an indispensable procedure in business deals. It's the norm of free trade. The seller sets a preposterous price, and the buyer tries his best to bring it down, until a compromise is reached. Yet you ignored the process. No wonder you ended up easy prey.\n[00:52 - 01:03] Speaker A: But don't you think it's annoying to overcharge the customers by such a handsome margin? By the way, I was about to say I could have talked my way to thirty yuan instead of one hundred and twenty.\n[01:04 - 01:16] Speaker B: Of course, that's something really irritating. And the only way to avoid being trapped is to know in advance about the real worth of the stuff. I recommend you to consult the price tags in the supermarket first. And then you may negotiate for a fair deal.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B consistently addresses Speaker A's complaints and provides relevant explanations or advice. For example, when Speaker A expresses anger about street markets, Speaker B immediately asks for clarification (\"What are you really mad about? Did you get ripped off?\"). Later, when Speaker A explains the situation, Speaker B offers a logical cultural context about bargaining in China. Speaker B's interjection \"Thirty?\" shows active listening and an accurate prediction of what Speaker A was about to say, which Speaker A then confirms. Speaker B then validates Speaker A's frustration and offers practical advice for future situations. The topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on the experience of being overcharged and the cultural context of bargaining.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency in this dialogue is very good. There are a couple of brief overlaps, specifically at [00:08 - 00:10] and [00:30 - 00:31]. These are very short and typical of natural, engaged conversation, where one speaker anticipates or interjects slightly before the other finishes. They do not constitute \"extended overlaps\" that would hinder understanding. There are no long or unnatural pauses that disrupt the flow of communication. The turns are well-paced, indicating active listening and a smooth exchange of information and sentiment between the speakers.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--143370",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm feeling pretty good about acquiring the practice. I think I'm prepared for what's coming next,\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: How do you think you'll fare managing a team of employees?\n[00:08 - 00:23] Speaker A: Honestly, I think I'll do just fine. I've been leading teams for years now and I have a lot of experience dealing with different types of people. Plus, I'm really good at delegating tasks and knowing when to step in and provide guidance\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B: Speaking of stepping in, how do you usually handle conflicts within a team?\n[00:26 - 00:35] Speaker A: I usually try to mediate and find a solution that works for everyone. But as I was saying, I'm confident in my ability to manage the team effectively.\n[00:36 - 00:41] Speaker B: That sounds excellent! We're really looking forward to having you on board and seeing what you can do with the practice.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement, maintaining clear topic coherence throughout.\n\n- Speaker A's initial statement about being prepared for acquiring the practice sets the stage.\n- Speaker B's question about managing employees is a logical follow-up to \"prepared for what's coming next\" in the context of acquiring a practice.\n- Speaker A's detailed response about leading teams and delegating directly answers B's question.\n- Speaker B's next question about handling conflicts is seamlessly transitioned (\"Speaking of stepping in\") from A's mention of \"knowing when to step in and provide guidance,\" demonstrating excellent contextual relevance.\n- Speaker A's response to the conflict question, followed by a reassertion of confidence in managing the team, keeps the core theme alive.\n- Speaker B's concluding remarks are a natural and positive wrap-up, reaffirming the purpose of the conversation.\n\nThere are no instances of off-topic remarks or misunderstandings. The conversation flows very naturally and logically.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The dialogue contains two instances of brief overlaps, both lasting approximately 1 second:\n- [00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence (overlap from 00:05 to 00:06).\n- [00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence (overlap from 00:22 to 00:23).\n\nThese brief overlaps are natural in conversation and do not hinder comprehension or indicate communication breakdown. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses indicated in the timestamps. The turns are timely and responsive, contributing to a natural and fluid interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--45",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Have you ever thought of moving, Sarah?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: We thought about it, but my husband and I can't afford it right now with\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: I totally get that, but have you looked into any government programs or subsidies that might help with the costs?\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: We haven't really looked into that yet. Buying a house near our company can be expensive, but there are ways to find cheaper houses.\n[00:17 - 00:18] Speaker A: Like what?\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: Well, you can buy a house far away from the city center. You would definitely save money that way.\n[00:24 - 00:25] Speaker A: That's a good idea.\n[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker B: My sister-in-law and her husband just bought a house that way. And they're pretty satisfied with it.\n[00:31 - 00:32] Speaker A: Is the house in poor condition?\n[00:33 - 00:41] Speaker B: Not at all, the woman who owned it bought it from her friend and took good care of it. But when she died she had no family left and no will, so the government had to step in\n[00:40 - 00:45] Speaker A: Wait, so the government sold it? How did they handle the sale process?\n[00:45 - 00:55] Speaker B: Yes, the government had to sell it since there was no will. But I was going to mention that the house was about 50 years old. There were a few repairs needed, but it didn't take a lot of money or time.\n[00:55 - 00:58] Speaker A: Oh, I see. Is it in a good location?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speakers consistently address the previous turn's content, whether by answering direct questions (e.g., Speaker B answering \"Have you ever thought of moving?\", Speaker A asking \"Like what?\", Speaker B explaining \"You can buy a house far away...\"), elaborating on previous points (e.g., Speaker B providing an example of her sister-in-law's house), or seeking clarification (e.g., Speaker A asking \"Wait, so the government sold it?\"). The conversation flows logically from the initial topic of moving and affordability to potential solutions, specific examples, and details about those examples. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or contradictory statements, maintaining high logical consistency and topic coherence throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; all pauses are brief (typically 1 second or less) and natural, allowing for processing and turn-taking without disrupting the flow. There are a couple of brief overlaps, specifically at [00:04 - 00:05] and [00:40 - 00:41]. In both cases, these are not extended overlaps but rather natural conversational occurrences, where one speaker briefly starts speaking while the other is finishing a thought or when clarifying a point mid-sentence. These brief overlaps indicate active listening and engagement rather than disruptive turn-taking issues. The overall pacing feels natural and dynamic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--93943",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: You're so easy to talk to.\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: I had a great time. You're really funny and make me\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: Sweet? Thanks! I'm glad you think so. I had fun too.\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker B: I'm glad we could finally go out. I've been wanting to for a long time.\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker A: Yeah, me too. I'm glad you said yes when I asked you.\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker B: Of course! Why wouldn't I want\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker A: I was just worried you might not want to go out with me because I'm not the most popular guy around.\n[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker B: That doesn't matter to me. I like spending time with you, and that's all that matters.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent throughout. Speaker A's opening compliment sets a positive tone, and Speaker B's appreciative response maintains it. Speaker A's \"Sweet? Thanks!\" is a direct and appropriate reaction to being called \"funny.\" The conversation then moves fluidly to the mutual enjoyment of the outing, with both speakers expressing their long-standing desire to spend time together. Speaker A's vulnerability about not being \"the most popular guy\" is a logical follow-up to \"I'm glad you said yes when I asked you,\" explaining the underlying reason for his relief. Speaker B's final response, \"That doesn't matter to me. I like spending time with you, and that's all that matters,\" directly addresses and reassures Speaker A's insecurity, demonstrating strong logical consistency and empathy. The topic coherence is excellent, with the conversation evolving naturally from general enjoyment to personal feelings and reassurance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are quick and natural, indicating an engaging conversation. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  **[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: I had a great time. You're really funny and make me**\n    **[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: Sweet? Thanks! I'm glad you think so. I had fun too.**\n    Here, Speaker A starts speaking at 0:04 while Speaker B finishes at 0:05, creating a 1-second overlap. This is a very brief overlap, common in natural conversation where one speaker anticipates the other's sentiment or is eager to respond. It doesn't disrupt the flow.\n2.  **[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker B: Of course! Why wouldn't I want**\n    **[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker A: I was just worried you might not want to go out with me because I'm not the most popular guy around.**\n    Again, Speaker A starts at 0:18 while Speaker B finishes at 0:19, another 1-second overlap. This is also a brief, natural overlap, perhaps indicating Speaker A's eagerness to express his worry before Speaker B could elaborate, or a natural anticipation in the turn-taking.\n\nNeither of these overlaps is \"extended\" or \"prolonged.\" They are brief, typical of dynamic, natural dialogue and do not hinder comprehension or the perception of fluent interaction. There are no significant silences that would indicate awkwardness or lack of engagement.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--643",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I really love cooking! Do you like cooking?\n[00:03 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not really.\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: What about baking? I made a chocolate cake today, it turned out delicious, and\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: Baking sounds like more fun than cooking.\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker A: What do you like to cook?\n[00:13 - 00:14] Speaker B: I've never cooked anything!\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker A: Really? It's so easy, it doesn't take long at all. I could show you how to prepare a\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker B: I'd love to learn. What was the rest of what you were going to say?\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: I was going to say I could show you how to make something simple, like a pasta dish.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue generally maintains good topic coherence and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates the conversation about cooking, and Speaker B provides a direct answer. Speaker A then smoothly transitions to a related topic, baking, after Speaker B's negative response to cooking.\n\nHowever, there is a minor logical inconsistency at [00:11 - 00:13] where Speaker A asks, \"What do you like to cook?\" immediately after Speaker B stated \"Not really\" to cooking and \"Baking sounds like more fun than cooking.\" This question ignores Speaker B's previous statements. Speaker B's response, \"I've never cooked anything!\" [00:13 - 00:14], directly addresses this inconsistency and clarifies their lack of cooking experience. Speaker A then adapts well by offering to teach, which brings the conversation back on track and maintains coherence.\n\nOverall, despite this minor logical misstep, the conversation recovers quickly, and the participants demonstrate good understanding and responsiveness to each other's turns, maintaining the flow and theme.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; all pauses are brief and natural (e.g., 1 second between Speaker A's question and Speaker B's answer at [00:02 - 00:03]).\n\nThere are a couple of brief overlaps, but these are not \"extended overlaps\" that harm the conversation.\n1.  At [00:09 - 00:11], Speaker B begins \"Baking sounds like more fun...\" while Speaker A is finishing \"...delicious, and\". This is a very short, natural overlap (approximately 1 second) where Speaker B is eager to respond to the shift in topic initiated by Speaker A.\n2.  At [00:21 - 00:24], Speaker B starts \"I'd love to learn. What was the rest of what you were going to say?\" while Speaker A is saying \"prepare a\". This is also a brief, natural overlap (approximately 1-2 seconds) where Speaker B expresses interest and simultaneously asks for clarification, indicating high engagement rather than disruption.\n\nThese brief overlaps and short pauses contribute to a natural and dynamic conversational flow, rather than detracting from it. The conversation feels spontaneous and engaging.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--15083",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: So, what do you do here at the company?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: I am a software engineer. I design and develop software for the company.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: That sounds really interesting! How did you get into that field?\n[00:10 - 00:22] Speaker B: I actually started out as a computer science major in college. After I graduated, I got a job working as a software developer for a small company. After a few years, I decided to move to a larger\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I'm curious—what made you decide to switch from a small company to a larger one like Rand's?\n[00:29 - 00:36] Speaker B: Well, I really liked the idea of working on something that could help people. When I saw the job posting, it seemed like a perfect fit for my skills and interests.\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker A: That's great! Do you have any advice for someone who wants to get into software engineering?\n[00:43 - 00:53] Speaker B: Definitely learn how to code. It is the foundation of everything we do here. Once you have that down, start exploring different areas of interest within computer science. There is so much to learn!\n[00:54 - 01:01] Speaker A: Speaking of coding, do you think it's more important to specialize in one language or to be versatile with several?\n[01:01 - 01:10] Speaker B: Being versatile is definitely valuable, but having a strong command of at least one language is crucial. It gives you a solid foundation to build upon.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence. Speaker B consistently answers Speaker A's questions directly and comprehensively. Speaker A asks relevant follow-up questions that delve deeper into Speaker B's experiences (e.g., \"How did you get into that field?\", \"what made you decide to switch from a small company to a larger one?\", \"Do you have any advice?\"). Even the interruption by Speaker A at [00:20] is highly relevant, focusing on the specific point Speaker B was about to elaborate on (\"move to a larger company\"), showing active listening and immediate engagement with the content. The conversation flows naturally from general roles to career history, then to advice, and finally to specific technical considerations within the field.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; responses are consistently prompt, indicating natural conversational rhythm. There is one instance of overlap at [00:20] where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. However, this overlap is brief (approximately 2 seconds) and immediately acknowledged by Speaker A (\"Sorry to interrupt\"). This type of brief, apologetic overlap is common in natural conversation, often indicating active engagement or eagerness to ask a relevant question, rather than a disruption in fluency. It does not qualify as an \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" overlapping turn that would harm the interaction's quality.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--35874",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Kevyn, I'm sorry I forgot our anniversary. I know how important it is to you, and\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I just want to say it's really okay. I know you're busy with work and sometimes things slip your mind.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: I really am sorry. I'll make it up to you, I promise.\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker B: There's no need to apologize, Jennah. I know you didn't mean to forget, and\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker A: But I still feel bad about it. Maybe we can plan something special this weekend?\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker B: That sounds like a great idea. Let's just enjoy the rest of our evening together, and we'll figure out the weekend plans later.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker A initiates with an apology, and Speaker B's immediate response is to reassure and minimize Speaker A's guilt, which is logically consistent with a supportive partner. Speaker A's subsequent insistence on making amends and Speaker B's continued reassurance and eventual agreement to a future plan demonstrate a coherent progression of the conversation. Each turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous speaker's statement, maintaining topic coherence throughout the discussion about the forgotten anniversary and subsequent reconciliation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There is one brief overlap: Speaker B begins speaking at 00:05 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:06. This 1-second overlap is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating it's a conscious and socially appropriate interruption rather than an awkward one, and it serves the purpose of immediate reassurance. There is also a 1-second pause between 00:24 and 00:25 before Speaker B responds, which is a natural, brief pause, not a prolonged or awkward silence. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth, and the brief overlap and pause do not detract from the natural flow of the conversation, instead contributing to its realistic feel.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--222",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:15] Speaker A: Hi, Monica, congratulations! Your presentation at the meeting was very successful and everyone was impressed by your speech. And it was so persuasive and I bet our clients will be convinced to invest their money in this project. You really made a big impact on\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: Thank you for saying that! But I just tried my best. I am very happy to know you like it.\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker A: You must have been prepared for a long time. Some statistics in this presentation are not easy to find, right?\n[00:26 - 00:35] Speaker B: Well, yes. Several colleagues from different departments helped me with that. They are very supportive. I consulted an economic expert last week. He was very kind to guide me\n[00:34 - 00:40] Speaker A: Oh, you consulted an expert? That must have been crucial. What kind of suggestions did he give?\n[00:41 - 00:51] Speaker B: He provided insights on the market trends and recommended some adjustments to our financial projections. But I also wanted to mention that he helped me refine some of the statistics that were difficult to find.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance throughout. Each speaker's turn logically follows from the previous one, maintaining a clear and coherent conversation flow.\n- Speaker B's initial response (\"Thank you for saying that!\") is a direct and appropriate reaction to Speaker A's compliment.\n- Speaker A's follow-up question (\"You must have been prepared for a long time. Some statistics... are not easy to find, right?\") builds directly on the topic of the successful presentation.\n- Speaker B's detailed explanation about help from colleagues and consulting an economic expert directly answers Speaker A's inquiry.\n- Speaker A's subsequent question (\"Oh, you consulted an expert? That must have been crucial. What kind of suggestions did he give?\") shows active listening and picks up on a key piece of information introduced by Speaker B, maintaining topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's final response provides a direct answer to the question about the expert's suggestions and cleverly links it back to the previously mentioned difficulty with statistics.\nThere are no instances of topic shifts without connection, irrelevant comments, or logical inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth and continuous flow of conversation.\n- There are two very brief overlaps identified (00:14 - 00:15 and 00:34 - 00:35). Both are only one second long. These short overlaps appear to be natural instances of eager participation or slight anticipation, rather than disruptive, prolonged interruptions. The prompt states \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these instances clearly fall into the \"brief overlaps\" category, signifying active engagement rather than a lack of fluency. The speakers manage turn-taking effectively.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--18",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What does your sister look like, Mike?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Well, she's tall and she has\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: Tall, huh? Does she play any sports?\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: Yes, she does. But I was going to say she's also pretty.\n[00:12 - 00:13] Speaker A: Is she like you?\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker B: I suppose so. We're both friendly and easy-going.\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker A: Is she as clever as you?\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker B: No, she's not as clever as me, but she's very creative.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates a topic about appearance, and Speaker B begins to answer. Speaker A interjects, acknowledging the previous point (\"Tall, huh?\") before shifting to a related but different topic (sports). Speaker B handles this interruption gracefully, answering the new question while also attempting to complete their original thought about appearance (\"But I was going to say she's also pretty.\"). This shows an attempt to maintain topic coherence despite the interruption. Subsequent turns flow logically, with Speaker A moving from physical traits and activities to personality (\"Is she like you?\", \"Is she as clever as you?\"), and Speaker B providing direct and relevant answers with elaboration. The conversation progresses naturally from general appearance to specific personality traits, which is a common and logical progression when describing a person.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There is one brief overlap at [00:03 - 00:04] where Speaker A interjects while Speaker B is still speaking. This overlap is short (approximately 1 second) and indicative of natural, enthusiastic conversation rather than a disruptive interruption. There are no extended overlaps. Similarly, pauses between turns are minimal and natural, mostly 1 second or less, allowing for quick and responsive turn-taking. For instance, the pause between Speaker A's first question and Speaker B's response is 1 second ([00:01] to [00:02]), and between Speaker B's \"pretty\" and Speaker A's next question is 1 second ([00:11] to [00:12]). The rapid turn-taking after that (e.g., [00:13], [00:16], [00:18]) also contributes to a fluent and dynamic exchange. The conversation feels unforced and conversational, with no long, awkward silences or disruptive interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--250",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: How can I help you?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Well, I'm looking for some summer clothes.\n[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker A: Oh, it is the right time for you purchasing in our clothes shop. We are now having a low price on all our summer collections, including\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but could you tell me exactly what kind of discount we're talking about?\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker A: Everything for summer is 20% off.\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: Really? That's great! I like this T-shirt. Would you like to help me look for any skirts that go well with\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: Skirts? Sure! But I was going to mention that we also have trousers that go well with it. Do you want to see both options?\n[00:31 - 00:33] Speaker B: Oh, yes, that would be perfect.\n[00:34 - 00:35] Speaker A: Look at this section.\n[00:35 - 00:36] Speaker B: This one is good.\n[00:37 - 00:40] Speaker A: You have good taste. It is very much in style this year.\n[00:41 - 00:43] Speaker B: I'll take this one. How much are they?\n[00:43 - 00:45] Speaker A: 160 yuan.\n[00:45 - 00:46] Speaker B: Here you are.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A consistently addresses Speaker B's queries and needs, acting as a helpful shop assistant. For example, when B asks for skirts, A offers skirts and an additional relevant option (trousers). Speaker B's responses are always pertinent to the ongoing conversation, moving the shopping scenario forward logically from looking for clothes, to asking about discounts, selecting an item, asking for matching items, and finally purchasing. The topic coherence is well-maintained throughout, focusing entirely on the summer clothes shopping experience. There are no sudden topic shifts or irrelevant remarks.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps identified.\n    - At [00:11 - 00:16], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. This is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B saying \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating a natural, albeit brief, interruption for clarification, which is perfectly acceptable in real conversation. The overlap duration is 1 second, which is not prolonged.\n    - At [00:24 - 00:31], Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing their sentence. This overlap is also 1 second long and is a common occurrence in natural dialogue, often indicating active listening or anticipation of the end of a thought. It does not disrupt the flow or clarity of the conversation.\n- **Pauses:** All pauses between speaker turns are very brief (0-1 second). For instance, [00:03 - 00:04], [00:18 - 00:19], [00:33 - 00:34], [00:36 - 00:37], [00:40 - 00:41]. These short pauses are natural and do not indicate hesitation, awkwardness, or a breakdown in communication.\n\nOverall, the conversation flows very naturally with no prolonged pauses or harmful overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--116313",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Mrs. K, can I ask you something?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Of course, Odin. What is it?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: Well, I was wondering if you could tell me what it takes to be a great dancer.\n[00:10 - 00:23] Speaker B: Oh, that's a difficult question to answer. There are many factors that contribute to being a great dancer. First and foremost, you must have passion for the art form. Without passion, you will never be able to put in the hours of practice needed to improve your technique and\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but when you say \"passion,\" do you mean just loving to dance, or is there something deeper you're referring to?\n[00:31 - 00:45] Speaker B: I mean a deep, unwavering love for dance that drives you to keep going even when it's tough. But passion alone isn't enough. You must also be dedicated and disciplined in your training. You need to be able to push yourself physically and mentally in order to reach your\n[00:44 - 00:50] Speaker A: And what about the mental aspect? How do you stay mentally strong when things get challenging?\n[00:50 - 01:10] Speaker B: Mental strength comes from a combination of discipline and resilience. It's about staying focused on your goals even when the going gets tough. But I was also going to mention that having a strong work ethic and being willing to sacrifice other things in your life is crucial to pursuing your dream of becoming a great dancer. If you can commit to all of these things, then I believe you have what it takes.\n[01:11 - 01:15] Speaker A: Thank you, Mrs. K. I'm going to work hard to become the best dancer I can be.\n[01:16 - 01:18] Speaker B: I know you will, Odin. I have faith in you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's initial question is clear, and Speaker B's response immediately addresses it by outlining factors for being a great dancer. Speaker A's interjections at [00:23] and [00:44] are not only relevant but also demonstrate active listening and a desire for clarification or deeper understanding (\"Sorry to jump in, but when you say 'passion'...\" and \"And what about the mental aspect?\"). These questions directly pick up on the preceding speaker's statements, ensuring high topic coherence. Speaker B consistently provides coherent and detailed answers to Speaker A's specific queries, while also continuing to elaborate on the broader topic of what it takes to be a great dancer. The conversation flows naturally from one point to the next, with each turn building logically on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates strong fluency. There are no instances of long pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are quick and natural, typically within 1 second. There are two instances of overlaps:\n1.  At [00:23], Speaker A interjects (\"Sorry to jump in...\") while Speaker B is still speaking. This overlap is very brief, lasting only a fraction of a second as Speaker A cuts in right at the end of Speaker B's utterance. Speaker A even explicitly acknowledges the interruption, which makes it feel natural rather than disruptive. This is an example of an acceptable, brief overlap for clarification.\n2.  At [00:44], Speaker A again interjects (\"And what about the mental aspect?\"), overlapping slightly with Speaker B's speech which ends at [00:45]. This overlap is also very brief, around 1 second, and serves to immediately pick up on a key term (\"mentally\") Speaker B just mentioned.\nNeither of these overlaps is prolonged or disruptive; they contribute to the dynamic and natural feel of the conversation, characteristic of an engaged discussion rather than a rigid turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--463",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hello, how are you?\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm good! I am reading Plato's Republic. It's really interesting.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: I really like Plato. Have you read other Greek texts?\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker B: I read the Iliad in high school. It was really interesting.\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker A: So you have read a lot of classic texts. Did you take literature classes in high school?\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B: No, I had an AP English class in college.\n[00:21 - 00:29] Speaker A: Oh, so you already have college-level classes in philosophy and classics. How did you become interested in classical literature?\n[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker B: Sorry to cut you off, I just wanted to ask, did you find the AP English class challenging?\n[00:34 - 00:42] Speaker A: It was challenging but also rewarding. I wanted to learn how to think critically. You mentioned you took a philosophy class once and found\n[00:41 - 00:43] Speaker B: Yes, and I thought it was really fun. How about you?\n[00:44 - 00:48] Speaker A: I don't know. I am interested in how a text's meaning can change over time.\n[00:49 - 00:50] Speaker B: Do you like to read new books?\n[00:50 - 00:56] Speaker A: Yes! I just finished reading Cold War by Steve Coll. It's a really fascinating historical read.\n[00:57 - 00:58] Speaker B: What's your favorite book?\n[00:59 - 01:03] Speaker A: I don't really have a favorite book. I enjoy reading history books most.\n[01:04 - 01:05] Speaker B: Have you ever read the Catcher in the Rye?\n[01:06 - 01:09] Speaker A: No, but it's on my list. I always hear it's great!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:** The dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A and Speaker B consistently respond to each other's statements and questions, building upon the previous turn.\n*   The initial exchange about Plato flows naturally into other Greek texts and classic literature.\n*   Speaker B's interruption at [00:28] to ask about the AP English class, while a slight deviation, is acknowledged (\"Sorry to cut you off\") and still logically connected to the previously discussed topic of classes. Speaker A addresses this question directly.\n*   Speaker A's attempt to return to the previous topic about B's interest in classics is then picked up by B asking \"How about you?\".\n*   Subsequent shifts, such as Speaker B asking about \"new books\" or \"The Catcher in the Rye,\" are still within the broader theme of reading and literature, maintaining overall topic coherence, even if they aren't direct follow-ups to the immediate preceding statement.\nThere are no instances of misunderstandings or irrelevant responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue exhibits generally appropriate interactional fluency, with some minor points to note.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps:\n    *   [00:28 - 00:29]: Speaker B overlaps Speaker A by 1 second. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to cut you off,\" indicating conversational awareness.\n    *   [00:41 - 00:42]: Speaker B overlaps Speaker A by 1 second. Speaker A is cut off.\n    According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" These 1-second overlaps fall into the \"brief\" category rather than \"prolonged.\"\n*   **Pauses:** There are several 1-second pauses between turns (e.g., [00:33 to 00:34], [00:43 to 00:44], [00:48 to 00:49], [00:56 to 00:57], [00:58 to 00:59], [01:03 to 01:04], [01:05 to 01:06]). The criteria state that \"small pauses... are acceptable.\" These 1-second pauses are consistently \"small\" and do not appear to be \"long\" or \"prolonged,\" meaning they do not significantly hinder the flow of conversation.\nOverall, while not perfectly smooth due to the brief overlaps and consistent small pauses, the fluency is generally good and aligns with what is deemed acceptable by the criteria. The conversational flow is natural enough.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--575",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Can you tell me some of your favorite brands? I'm shopping for new clothes.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: Oh, I guess I like Nike and Under Armour.\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker A: Oh, that's cool! What else do you look for\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: Actually, I was thinking, have you considered checking out online stores for better deals?\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: That's a good idea, but I also like adidas and Adidas Originals. Are there any stores you shop at?\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker B: Yeah, there's one called H&M.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains good logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates a conversation about clothing brands. Speaker B provides relevant brands. Speaker A follows up, but Speaker B's response at [00:10 - 00:14] (\"Actually, I was thinking, have you considered checking out online stores for better deals?\") is a slight deviation from Speaker A's specific question \"What else do you look for\", which implied looking for more brands or characteristics. Speaker B shifts to a different aspect of shopping (online stores and deals) and poses a question back to A, rather than directly answering A's previous question about *their own* preferences. However, Speaker A gracefully handles this by acknowledging the suggestion and then steering the conversation back to brands and then stores, which keeps the overall topic of clothing shopping coherent. The deviation by Speaker B is minor and doesn't significantly derail the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one brief overlap detected:\n- [00:10 - 00:11] Speaker A's turn overlaps with [00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B's turn. This is approximately a 1-second overlap where Speaker B begins speaking just as Speaker A is finishing. This is a common occurrence in natural conversation and is not considered an \"extended overlap\" or harmful.\nNo long pauses are detected between speaker turns. Interactional fluency is appropriate and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--89552",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Not really... I was thinking maybe I could talk about how lions are born, or how they live in the wild, especially\n[00:06 - 00:14] Speaker B: Oh, sorry to cut in, but have you considered focusing on how lions interact with their pride? That could add a unique angle to your essay.\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker A: That's a good idea! I was also going to mention how they live in the wild and their hunting techniques.\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker B: Perfect! Just make sure to focus on one or two main points, and develop them thoroughly in your essay. Good luck!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A introduces the topic of essay ideas about lions, specifically \"how lions are born, or how they live in the wild.\" Speaker B's interjection directly relates to this, suggesting a \"unique angle\" by focusing on \"how lions interact with their pride,\" which is a relevant sub-topic within the broader theme of lion behavior. Speaker A acknowledges this suggestion (\"That's a good idea!\") and then builds upon it by re-iterating previously considered points (\"how they live in the wild and their hunting techniques\"). Finally, Speaker B offers relevant advice on essay writing (\"focus on one or two main points, and develop them thoroughly\"), which is a logical progression given the context of helping with an essay. There are no irrelevant remarks, abrupt topic shifts, or inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is excellent.\nThere is one brief overlap: Speaker B starts speaking at [00:06] while Speaker A finishes at [00:07]. This is a 1-second overlap. The prompt explicitly states that \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this falls into that category. Furthermore, Speaker B says, \"Oh, sorry to cut in,\" which is a natural conversational repair mechanism that acknowledges the brief overlap, making it sound even more fluent and polite.\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are immediate and natural, contributing to a smooth and continuous flow of conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--139",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Honey, could you help me here a minute?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Sure, sweetie. What are you planning to\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: I just need some help with the curtain.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Oh, I see. Why don't you just hold the ladder, and I'll put it up?\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker A: Actually, I was hoping you could help me put it up since I already started holding the ladder earlier.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance.\n- Speaker A initiates a request for help, which Speaker B immediately acknowledges and seeks clarification for.\n- Speaker A's response directly addresses Speaker B's implicit question about the nature of the help needed.\n- Speaker B then offers a logical suggestion based on the context (curtain installation often involves a ladder).\n- Speaker A's final response clarifies their specific need, building upon the previous turn and correcting Speaker B's assumption, while maintaining the logical flow of the conversation.\nAll responses are logical, consistent, and maintain topic coherence, effectively moving the interaction forward to clarify the task at hand.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There is one brief overlap between Speaker B's turn (\"What are you planning to...\") and Speaker A's subsequent clarification (\"I just need some help with the curtain.\"). This overlap (00:04-00:05) is short and natural, as Speaker A anticipates Speaker B's intended question and interjects. This is a common and acceptable feature of natural conversation, allowing for efficient turn-taking and clarification without hindering comprehension or indicating a breakdown in communication. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would disrupt the flow or make the dialogue feel unnatural or difficult to follow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--136291",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I'm telling you, I'm right about this!\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: No, you're not! You're just being stubborn and refusing to see the possibility that\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: I'm not refusing to see anything! I just know I'm right, and I'm confident in what I believe, and\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: But confidence doesn't mean you're always right. You need to be open to hearing other people's opinions too.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and maintain strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Each speaker directly addresses and counters the previous statement, creating a clear argumentative flow.\n- Speaker B's \"No, you're not!\" directly challenges Speaker A's \"I'm right.\" The accusation of being \"stubborn\" logically follows from the refusal to see other possibilities.\n- Speaker A's \"I'm not refusing to see anything!\" is a direct denial of Speaker B's accusation, maintaining focus on the core disagreement.\n- Speaker B's \"But confidence doesn't mean you're always right\" is a direct counter to Speaker A's claim of being \"confident in what I believe,\" pivoting the argument from certainty to openness.\nThe conversation successfully stays on topic and progresses logically through the disagreement.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very natural for an argumentative conversation. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. There is one brief overlap detected between [00:11 - 00:12] where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap. According to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" A 1-second overlap falls into the \"brief overlaps\" category and is perfectly natural in an engaged or even heated discussion, indicating active listening and eagerness to respond rather than a lack of fluency. It does not hinder comprehension or signal a breakdown in the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--131092",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey, I'm sorry about what happened yesterday. I didn't mean to make you feel uncomfortable or\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: It's okay, I know you didn't mean it. I was just feeling a little down and you caught me at a bad time.\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: Yeah, I noticed that you were acting kind of off yesterday. Is everything alright at\n[00:14 - 00:23] Speaker B: Sorry to cut you off, but I just want to clarify—it's not just about yesterday. I've been under a lot of pressure lately, and maybe that's why I reacted the way I did.\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker A: I understand. We all have our bad days. So how are things going with work? Any better?\n[00:30 - 00:40] Speaker B: Yeah, actually they are. I got a big project that I've been working on wrapped up today and it feels great to have accomplished something like that. So thanks for asking and being interested in how my day is going.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates with an apology, and Speaker B responds by accepting it and providing context for their behavior. Speaker A then shows concern, and Speaker B further clarifies their state, acknowledging a momentary interruption. Speaker A's subsequent empathetic response and shift to asking about work is a natural and relevant progression, as \"pressure lately\" often implies work-related stress. Speaker B then directly answers the work-related question positively and expresses gratitude. Each turn builds on the previous one, maintaining a clear and understandable conversational flow without any abrupt or irrelevant topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two brief overlaps detected:\n- [00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B starts at 00:04 while Speaker A ends at 00:05. This is a 1-second overlap.\n- [00:14 - 00:23] Speaker B starts at 00:14 while Speaker A ends at 00:15. This is also a 1-second overlap.\nBoth overlaps are very brief and, as noted in the prompt, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" In the second instance, Speaker B explicitly says, \"Sorry to cut you off,\" which is a natural conversational repair and indicates awareness, contributing to the naturalness rather than detracting from fluency. The pauses between turns are either non-existent (e.g., A's turn starting immediately after B's previous turn ends) or very brief (e.g., 1 second between [00:29] and [00:30]). There are no prolonged pauses or extended overlaps that would hinder the flow or naturalness of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--46729",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What do you think this diamond is worth?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Well, it's a two carat diamond, so it's worth about $4,000.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: What?! That's ridiculous! I paid $2,000 for it!\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker B: I'm sorry, but that's the market value, and\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: Wait, are you saying the market value has dropped since I bought it?\n[00:17 - 00:21] Speaker B: Yes, the market value fluctuates over time, so it could have changed since your purchase.\n[00:22 - 00:23] Speaker A: There has to be something you can do.\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: I could give you a store credit for $2,500.\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker A: That's not going to do me any good. I need the cash\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker B: I understand you need cash, but unfortunately, store credit is the best offer I can make.\n[00:35 - 00:38] Speaker A: I'm sorry, but that's the best I can do.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue maintains strong topic coherence throughout, focusing on the diamond's value, market fluctuations, and potential resolutions. Speaker B's responses are consistently relevant, directly addressing Speaker A's concerns, questions, and demands (e.g., explaining market value, offering store credit, reiterating their limits). Speaker A's turns also logically follow, expressing shock, seeking clarification, demanding solutions, and rejecting offers.\n\nThe only minor point of logical inconsistency arises in Speaker A's final turn: \"I'm sorry, but that's the best I can do.\" Given that Speaker A was demanding cash and rejecting the store credit, this statement is ambiguous. It could imply acceptance out of resignation, or a poorly worded reiteration of their inability to compromise, or even a misunderstanding by the transcriber. If Speaker A is the customer, saying \"that's the best *I* can do\" (as if offering something) is ill-fitting after \"I need the cash.\" While it doesn't break the entire logical flow, it makes the conclusion of the conversation somewhat less clear and slightly inconsistent with Speaker A's earlier stance. However, it's not a \"significant issue\" that derails the entire conversation's understanding or topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are quick and natural, typically within 1 second. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  [00:13] Speaker B's turn (\"...and\") is overlapped by Speaker A's immediate interruption (\"Wait, are you saying...\"). This is a natural and common occurrence in active, engaged conversation, especially when one speaker is surprised or eager to ask a clarifying question. It's brief and doesn't hinder understanding.\n2.  [00:30] Speaker A's turn (\"...I need the cash\") is slightly overlapped by Speaker B's response (\"I understand you need cash...\"). This is also a common and natural phenomenon, indicating active listening and a prompt, relevant reply.\n\nNeither of these overlaps is extended or prolonged, and they contribute to the natural, real-time feel of the conversation rather than indicating communication issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--80411",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey there, rose. Aren't you a beauty?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Why thank you, Tara. I'm quite pleased with how I turned out this\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I'm really curious—how did you come to be?\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker B: Well, I started out as a seed deep in the ground. Over time, I grew and flourished into the stunning flower you see before you.\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker A: That's amazing! What's your purpose?\n[00:22 - 00:30] Speaker B: Some say that I represent love and appreciation. Others say that I'm simply here to add beauty to the world. Either way, I enjoy making people smile\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker A: Speaking of beauty, you definitely do that! Thank you for brightening my day, rose.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's replies directly address Speaker A's questions and statements, flowing smoothly from compliments to the rose's origin, then to its purpose, and finally concluding with appreciation. There are no instances of irrelevant or off-topic contributions, and the conversation maintains a clear and understandable progression.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction generally shows good fluency. There are no prolonged pauses between turns. There is one brief overlap at [00:06 - 00:07], where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing a sentence. Speaker B is cut off (\"I'm quite pleased with how I turned out this\"). While this is a brief overlap, the fact that Speaker B's sentence is incomplete indicates a slight disruption in turn-taking fluidity. However, Speaker A immediately acknowledges this by saying, \"Sorry to jump in,\" which self-corrects and makes the interaction more natural, mitigating the impact of the overlap. This single, brief, and acknowledged interruption does not constitute \"significant issues\" or \"prolonged overlapping turns\" as defined in the criteria, and the conversation flow is not harmed overall.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--342",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Mom, I've got something to tell you. So, please! Aunt Jane buys a new bike for Tom. He is putting on a lot\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker B: Wait, Tom got a new bike? But I bought you a new one just last year. Isn't it handsome?\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker A: It is great. But Tom's bike is so much better than mine.\n[00:15 - 00:17] Speaker B: Frankly, he is more well-behaved than you when\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: Nothing of that sort! Why hasn't the bus come yet? Every morning we have to wait for so long.\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker B: Mom, it's OK. I will buy a big car one day. It is faster than the bus.\n[00:28 - 00:36] Speaker A: Really? I am looking forward to that. But wait, you interrupted me earlier—what were you saying about Tom being more well-behaved?\n[00:36 - 00:41] Speaker B: Oh, right. I just meant that maybe if you took better care of your things, you'd appreciate your bike more.\n[00:42 - 00:44] Speaker A: Well, I still think Tom is just showing off.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in Response Relevance.\n1.  **Abrupt Topic Shift:** At [0:16], Speaker A abruptly shifts from discussing Tom's bike and being well-behaved to complaining about the bus (\"Why hasn't the bus come yet?\"). This is a sudden and unmotivated change of topic, breaking the logical flow of the conversation. While Speaker A later attempts to return to the previous topic at [0:28], the initial shift is jarring.\n2.  **Logical Inconsistency in Character Roles:** The most critical issue is at [0:23] where Speaker B says, \"Mom, it's OK. I will buy a big car one day.\" Based on the initial exchange (\"Mom, I've got something to tell you\" by Speaker A at [0:00] and Speaker B's subsequent lines like \"I bought *you* a new one\" and \"he is more well-behaved than *you*\"), Speaker A is established as the child and Speaker B as the mother. For Speaker B (the mother) to address Speaker A (the child) as \"Mom\" is a fundamental logical inconsistency in the character roles, making the dialogue nonsensical in that turn.\n3.  **Incomplete Sentence/Thought:** At [0:06], Speaker A ends with \"He is putting on a lot\" which feels incomplete or irrelevant in the context. Similarly, at [0:17], Speaker B ends with \"Frankly, he is more well-behaved than you when\" which is cut off, contributing to a slight lack of coherence in that specific turn.\n\nWhile there are attempts at topic recovery (Speaker A bringing back the \"well-behaved\" point at [0:28]) and generally relevant responses within each *specific* sub-topic, the major abrupt shift and the critical character role inconsistency lead to significant issues in overall logical consistency and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good.\n1.  **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps:\n    *   [00:05 - 00:10] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A for 1 second (from 0:05 to 0:06). This is a brief overlap and can be interpreted as Speaker B eagerly interjecting or reacting to the news.\n    *   [00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B for 1 second (from 0:16 to 0:17). This is a brief overlap, which functions effectively as an interruption, consistent with Speaker A's dismissive \"Nothing of that sort!\"\n    These short overlaps are natural and contribute to a dynamic conversation rather than being disruptive extended overlaps.\n2.  **Pauses:** All pauses between speaker turns are brief (1 second each: 0:14-0:15, 0:22-0:23, 0:27-0:28, 0:41-0:42). These are acceptable and natural, allowing for processing and turn-taking without feeling like prolonged silences.\nThere are no long pauses or extended overlaps that would harm the fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--12203",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm sorry I was so mean to you today. I know you were just trying to help me with my homework, and\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: It's okay, but can we talk about what was really bothering you? I feel like there's more to it than just the homework.\n[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker A: Yeah, I guess I was just really stressed about everything. But that doesn't make it right for me to take it out on you. I'm really sorry.\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker B: Apology accepted. And I forgive you because I know how much you love me. Right?\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker A: Right! And I do love you so much! You're my favorite sister in the whole world!\n[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker B: Aww, thank you! You're my favorite sister too!\n[00:34 - 00:35] Speaker A: Really?\n[00:35 - 00:36] Speaker B: Yes, really!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one, creating a natural and coherent flow.\n*   Speaker B's response at [00:04] directly acknowledges Speaker A's apology and then logically probes for the underlying cause, showing empathy and moving the conversation forward beyond the surface issue.\n*   Speaker A's response at [00:12] directly answers Speaker B's question about what was bothering them and reiterates the apology, maintaining consistency.\n*   Speaker B's acceptance of the apology at [00:20] is followed by a playful, affectionate statement (\"I know how much you love me. Right?\"), which is relevant to the implied close relationship and prompts further interaction.\n*   Speaker A's enthusiastic affirmation at [00:25] directly responds to Speaker B's prompt and escalates the affection, leading to a sweet resolution.\n*   The subsequent exchange of \"favorite sister\" compliments is a natural and logical continuation of the affectionate tone established.\nThere are no instances of topic shifts, misunderstandings, or irrelevant contributions. The conversation progresses smoothly from conflict resolution to affectionate reassurance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap at [00:04 - 00:05] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is finishing. This is a 1-second overlap. This is a common and natural occurrence in fluid conversations, especially between people with a close relationship, indicating active listening or eagerness to respond. It is not an \"extended overlap\" that disrupts communication.\n*   **Pauses:** Pauses between turns are either non-existent (immediate turn-taking) or very brief (e.g., 1 second between [00:11] and [00:12], and between [00:30] and [00:31]). These are natural conversational pauses that allow for processing or turn-taking, rather than \"long pauses\" that would indicate hesitation or disengagement.\nThe pace and rhythm of the conversation are very natural and fluid, reflecting a comfortable and engaged interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--4",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Happy Birthday, this is for you, Brian.\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: I'm so happy you remember, please come in and enjoy the party. Everyone's here, I'm sure you will find\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: Oh, before I forget, I wanted to ask you something—who helped you organize everything? The decorations are stunning.\n[00:14 - 00:22] Speaker B: Thanks! Actually, my sister helped a lot with the decorations. But I was saying, I'm sure you have a good time. By the way, would you like to dance?\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker A: Sure, I'd love to.\n[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker B: This is really a wonderful party.\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker A: Yes, you are always popular with everyone. And you look very pretty today.\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker B: Thanks, that's very kind of you to say. I hope my necklace goes with my dress, and they both make me look elegant for\n[00:36 - 00:42] Speaker A: Oh, I was just going to mention your necklace! It's stunning and really complements your dress perfectly.\n[00:43 - 00:47] Speaker B: I'm glad you think so! I was a bit worried about whether they matched.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or naturally builds upon the previous one, maintaining topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial response to the birthday wish and gift is appropriate.\n- Speaker A's shift to asking about decorations (00:07) is a natural query in a party setting, acknowledging the effort.\n- Speaker B responds directly to the decoration question (00:14) and then smoothly attempts to return to their prior unfinished thought before shifting to a relevant social invitation (dancing). This shows good coherence and management of topic flow.\n- Speaker A's agreement to dance is a direct and relevant response (00:22).\n- Speaker B's general positive comment about the party (00:24) keeps the conversation positive and relevant to the context.\n- Speaker A's compliments (00:26) are a natural progression in a social setting.\n- Speaker B's acknowledgment of the compliment and subsequent self-consciousness about her outfit (00:31) leads naturally into Speaker A's reinforcing compliment (00:36). This specific interaction, where A was \"just going to mention\" what B brought up, is a strong indicator of high relevance and engagement.\n- Speaker B's final remark (00:43) directly responds to A's compliment, expressing relief, which closes the loop on the topic of the outfit.\nOverall, the conversation flows logically with natural transitions and relevant contributions from both speakers.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high.\n- **Overlaps:** Two brief overlaps are present:\n    - [00:07 - 00:08]: Speaker A overlaps Speaker B by 1 second. Speaker A interjects with \"Oh, before I forget...\" to ask a question. This is a common and natural occurrence in conversation when a thought occurs suddenly, rather than a disruptive prolonged overlap.\n    - [00:36 - 00:37]: Speaker A overlaps Speaker B by 1 second. Speaker A says \"Oh, I was just going to mention your necklace!\" as Speaker B is talking about her necklace. This type of overlap indicates strong active listening and anticipation, where speakers are on the same wavelength, and is highly characteristic of natural, engaged conversation, not harmful.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The gap between [00:42] and [00:43] is only 1 second, which is a very small and natural pause.\nBoth the overlaps and pauses are within the range of acceptable and natural conversational dynamics, contributing to the sense of a fluid and engaged interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--64",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Adam, could you show me around the school?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: No problem.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker A: What's the tallest building?\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: You mean the white building near the playground?\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker A: Yes.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: That is the library. And it has more than 1,000,000 books.\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker A: What's the building to the south of the library?\n[00:16 - 00:24] Speaker B: You know, our school is divided into two parts, the junior high school and the senior high school. That is the new classroom building for our senior students, and\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker A: Wait, did you mention if there's a swimming pool here?\n[00:27 - 00:37] Speaker B: Yes, there is a large swimming pool, but it is only available in summer. But as I was saying, the new classroom building is for our senior high school students, and it's a great place for them to study.\n[00:37 - 00:41] Speaker A: I do envy you. And I hope I can enter your school one day.\n[00:41 - 00:43] Speaker B: I believe that you can make your dream come true.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses are generally relevant and logically consistent. Speaker B consistently answers Speaker A's questions about the school layout and features. A minor point of deviation occurs at [00:23] where Speaker A abruptly shifts the topic by asking about a swimming pool while Speaker B is still explaining the previous building. However, Speaker B gracefully manages this interruption by first addressing Speaker A's new question and then smoothly returning to the original topic (\"But as I was saying...\"). This demonstrates good conversational recovery and maintains topic coherence despite the momentary shift. The final turns maintain the overall theme of Speaker A's interest in the school. There are no major logical inconsistencies or inexplicable turns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are no prolonged pauses between turns that disrupt the flow. The most notable aspect is the overlap at [00:23 - 00:24], where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This is a brief overlap (approximately 1 second) and acts as an interruption. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" While it's an interruption, it's not a prolonged overlapping turn. Speaker B's response at [00:27] (\"But as I was saying...\") acknowledges the interruption and demonstrates a natural conversational recovery, preventing any significant breakdown in fluency. Overall, the conversation flows naturally with appropriate turn-taking, save for this single, brief interruption.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--166",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Mr. Blake? Mr. Foster's on the phone. He'd like to know if you can send over those training manuals?\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Oh, tell him I'll leave them at his office tomorrow once they're\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but he was hoping that you could drop them off this afternoon. It's quite urgent.\n[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker B: I'm afraid that I can't do that. They're at the printer's being copied. They'll be back tomorrow before 1 o'clock. Should I still leave them at his office after that?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker A clearly states the purpose of the call (Mr. Foster's request for training manuals). Speaker B's initial response directly addresses this. Speaker A's interruption, while breaking the turn, is highly relevant as it introduces a critical piece of information (urgency for same-day delivery) that changes the parameters of the request. Speaker B's final response logically addresses the urgency, explains why it cannot be met immediately, provides an alternative timeline, and then asks a pertinent clarifying question about the next steps. All turns are logically consistent with previous statements and maintain a clear focus on the topic of the training manuals.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is one brief overlap between [00:08] and [00:09] where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. This overlap is short (approximately 1 second) and functional, as Speaker A is delivering urgent information that necessitates cutting in. It does not lead to a prolonged or disruptive overlapping turn where both speakers are attempting to talk over each other for an extended period. Speaker B immediately yields the floor. There are no long or unnatural pauses between speaker turns. The conversation flows smoothly and efficiently, indicative of natural human interaction, where brief interruptions or turn-taking adjustments for clarity or urgency are common and acceptable.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--547",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Did you ever hear of General Robert E. Lee?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Yeah, his grandson lives in my building!\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: What do you know about the Civil War?\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker B: A lot of people got hurt.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker A: Are you interested in history?\n[00:12 - 00:12] Speaker B: No.\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker A: Well, it's important that we know our history. What other wars did America fight in?\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker B: Uh, World War II, mostly.\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker A: You should really get more involved in history! What about World War I?\n[00:26 - 00:27] Speaker B: Yeah, that's another one.\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker A: And that's about it. Do you know what year that war started and\n[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker B: Actually, I think it ended in 1918, but why is it so crucial to know these dates?\n[00:36 - 00:46] Speaker A: It's not just about dates; understanding history helps us learn from past mistakes. For example, the causes and consequences of World War\n[00:45 - 00:50] Speaker B: Speaking of consequences, do you think our current policies are influenced by these historical events?\n[00:50 - 00:57] Speaker A: Absolutely, many current policies are shaped by historical events. That's why knowing history is so important.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence throughout. Speaker A consistently attempts to engage Speaker B in the topic of history, starting with a specific figure, then broader wars, and finally the importance of historical knowledge. Speaker B's initial responses, while brief and indicating a lack of interest (\"No,\" \"A lot of people got hurt\"), are direct and relevant answers to Speaker A's questions. As the conversation progresses, Speaker B's engagement improves, culminating in a relevant and thought-provoking question about the influence of historical events on current policies. Speaker A then provides a direct and logical answer to this question, tying back to the initial premise of history's importance. The conversation flows naturally, with each turn building upon the previous one, even when one speaker is initially less engaged.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two instances of brief, 1-second overlaps ([00:31 - 00:36] where B starts at 00:31 while A ends at 00:32, and [00:45 - 00:50] where B starts at 00:45 while A ends at 00:46). As per the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\" and these do not constitute \"extended overlaps.\" Similarly, there are a few very short pauses (e.g., 1 second between [00:07] and [00:08], and between [00:11] and [00:12]), which are considered \"small pauses\" and are acceptable. There are no \"long pauses between speaker turns\" or \"prolonged overlaps\" detected. The turn-taking feels natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--67184",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hi!\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Hey, you look great!\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker A: Thanks, so do you. I'm really excited for tonight.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Me too. I've been looking forward to it all week, especially\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: Oh, really? What have you been most excited about?\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B: Honestly, just getting to spend some quality time together. So what do you want to do tonight?\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker A: I don't know, whatever you want to do. I'm just happy to be spending time with you.\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker B: Well, how about we start with dinner? There's this great new restaurant I've been hearing about\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker A: Actually, I was thinking—do you prefer trying new places, or would you rather go somewhere familiar?\n[00:33 - 00:40] Speaker B: I usually like trying new places, but I'm open to anything. That new restaurant I mentioned has been getting rave reviews.\n[00:40 - 00:42] Speaker A: That sounds perfect. Let's go!\n[00:43 - 00:46] Speaker B: This was a really great evening, thank you for coming out with me.\n[00:46 - 00:50] Speaker A: I had a really great time too, thank you for inviting me.\n[00:50 - 00:53] Speaker B: I'll definitely have to do this again sometime soon.\n[00:53 - 00:54] Speaker A: I'd love that.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the ongoing conversation. The topic coherently progresses from initial greetings and excitement for the evening to planning the activity (dinner) and then seamlessly transitions to reflecting on the successful evening. There are no abrupt topic shifts, non-sequiturs, or misunderstandings. For example, Speaker A's question about preference for new vs. familiar places directly responds to Speaker B's suggestion of a new restaurant, and Speaker B's answer is perfectly aligned. The shift implying a passage of time (from planning to post-event reflection) is also a natural narrative progression within a transcript.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two instances of brief, 1-second overlaps:\n1.  [00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A starts speaking at 00:09 while Speaker B finishes at 00:10. This is a minor overlap where Speaker A jumps in right as Speaker B is trailing off (\"especially\"), showing eagerness and engagement, which is natural in conversation.\n2.  [00:27 - 00:33] Speaker A starts speaking at 00:27 while Speaker B finishes at 00:28. Similar to the first, this is a brief overlap where Speaker A interjects a clarifying question (\"Actually, I was thinking...\") as Speaker B concludes their thought about the new restaurant. This also indicates active listening and conversational flow rather than a disruptive interruption.\n\nThere are no extended overlaps detected.\nRegarding pauses, there are small, natural pauses (e.g., 1-second pause between [00:00-00:00] and [00:01-00:02], and 1-second pause between [00:42-00:43]) which are perfectly acceptable and contribute to the natural rhythm of conversation. There are no long, awkward pauses. The overall flow is smooth and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--99613",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hey Joe, I've been thinking about this idea for a while and I really want to get started on it. It's going to be something that\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: Wait, before you go on, what exactly is this idea?\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker A: I want to start a business.\n[00:10 - 00:11] Speaker B: What kind of business?\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A: I want to start a company that manufactures and sells eco-friendly products.\n[00:17 - 00:21] Speaker B: That's a great idea! I think there's a lot of potential in that market.\n[00:21 - 00:32] Speaker A: I know there is! I've been doing some research and there's definitely a demand for eco-friendly products. I just need to figure out the best way to position our\n[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker B: Have you thought about how you're going to fund this? I mean, do you have a plan for the initial investment?\n[00:37 - 00:48] Speaker A: That's actually something I was about to mention. I haven't finalized the funding part yet, but I do have a few potential investors in mind. I'll need to work on a solid business plan to present to them.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial interruptions (\"Wait, before you go on, what exactly is this idea?\", \"What kind of business?\") are directly aimed at clarifying Speaker A's vague statements, showing active listening and a desire for specific information. Speaker A then provides clear and direct answers (\"I want to start a business.\", \"I want to start a company that manufactures and sells eco-friendly products.\"). Speaker B's subsequent affirmation and comment on market potential are relevant to Speaker A's disclosed idea. The shift to funding initiated by Speaker B, while an interruption, is a highly logical and coherent next step in a discussion about starting a business, and Speaker A's response (\"That's actually something I was about to mention.\") confirms its relevance and timeliness. The conversation flows naturally from concept to practical considerations.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two instances of overlaps:\n1.  **[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B overlapping Speaker A [00:00 - 00:06]:** A 1-second overlap where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A to ask for clarification. This is a brief, natural, and common type of interruption in engaged conversation, not disruptive.\n2.  **[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker B overlapping Speaker A [00:21 - 00:32]:** A 2-second overlap where Speaker B introduces the topic of funding while Speaker A is mid-sentence. While slightly longer, it is still a natural and common occurrence when one speaker anticipates the flow or is eager to introduce a related point. It indicates engagement rather than a communication breakdown and does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or \"extended\" overlap that harms the interaction.\n\nPauses between turns are minimal and natural (e.g., 1-second pauses at 00:11-00:12 and 00:36-00:37), allowing for natural processing time. There are no long or awkward pauses that disrupt the conversation's rhythm. The dialogue flows smoothly and naturally.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--472",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Good morning. How can I help you?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: I'd like to open a new account.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: Have you filled out an application form?\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: Yes. And I've brought some documents along with me, too. Do you need to see my passport?\n[00:11 - 00:22] Speaker A: Yes. I'll just have my assistant look over these quickly and then we'll move on to the next step. Did you want to open up a checking account and a savings account together,\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I was wondering if there's a minimum balance required for either of these accounts?\n[00:28 - 00:36] Speaker A: Yes, there is a minimum balance requirement, but it's quite low. I was about to ask if you wanted to open both a checking and savings account.\n[00:37 - 00:40] Speaker B: Yes, I do. Does the checking account come with a debit card?\n[00:41 - 00:50] Speaker A: Yes. Actually, both accounts come with cards that you can use in ATM machines, so that you won't have to come in to the bank to make a transaction.\n[00:51 - 00:52] Speaker B: That's very convenient.\n[00:52 - 00:58] Speaker A: It is. Our customers really like it. Do you have any other questions about your new accounts?\n[00:58 - 01:02] Speaker B: Yes. What's the maximum amount that you are allowed to have in an overdraft?\n[01:02 - 01:04] Speaker A: The maximum is $1000.\n[01:05 - 01:07] Speaker B: Is there a penalty for having an overdraft?\n[01:07 - 01:23] Speaker A: Yes, there is a penalty fee if you exceed your overdraft limit. By the way, I didn't get a chance to mention earlier—there's also a small monthly maintenance fee for the accounts unless you maintain the minimum balance. Would you like more details on that?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance.\n- **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's response directly follows and addresses the previous turn, contributing to a clear and progressive conversation about opening a bank account. For instance, Speaker A's question about the application form logically follows Speaker B's request to open an account. Speaker B's questions about minimum balance, debit cards, and overdrafts are all relevant to the features and terms of a new account.\n- **Topic Coherence:** The entire conversation stays strictly on the topic of opening a new bank account. Even when Speaker B interrupts to ask about a minimum balance, the question is highly relevant to the main topic. Speaker A skillfully handles this by answering and then smoothly returning to the previous point (\"I was about to ask if you wanted to open both a checking and savings account\"). Speaker A also proactively provides relevant additional information (monthly maintenance fee) at the end, demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the customer's potential needs and questions regarding new accounts. There are no irrelevant tangents or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits excellent fluency.\n- **Extended Overlaps:** The transcript indicates no extended overlaps. While Speaker B says \"Sorry to interrupt\" at [00:22], this suggests a brief, polite interjection, which is common and natural in conversations, rather than a prolonged period of simultaneous speech that would impede understanding. The timestamps do not show any significant periods where both speakers are active concurrently.\n- **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The timestamps show that turns typically follow immediately or after a very brief, natural pause of 1 second (e.g., [00:01]-[00:02], [00:03]-[00:04], [00:27]-[00:28]). These short pauses are perfectly acceptable and contribute to the natural rhythm of a conversation, rather than indicating awkwardness or hesitation.\nOverall, the pacing is smooth, and the turn-taking is efficient and natural, without any disruptions to the flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--624",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What are your favorite animals?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: I really like dogs. Do you have a dog?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: I used to have a dog. What's your favorite dog breed?\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: I love pugs. What kind of dog did you have before?\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but why did you stop having a dog?\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: She was a chihuahua mixed with chihuahua. She had the body of a chihuahua and the head of a corgi.\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker A: That sounds pretty cute. Do you have any pets?\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: I used to have two dogs. But I can't have dogs where I live now.\n[00:27 - 00:28] Speaker A: Why's that?\n[00:29 - 00:33] Speaker B: I'm in a high rise. I would love to have a cat though! but I'm\n[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker A: Wait, you mentioned you can't have dogs, but are cats allowed in your building?\n[00:37 - 00:40] Speaker B: Haha! You're living with a cat! What's your cat's name?\n[00:41 - 00:42] Speaker A: That's a secret!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance and logical consistency.\n\n1.  **[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker A's interruption and topic shift:** Speaker B explicitly asks \"What kind of dog did you have before?\" (referring to Speaker A's previous dog). Speaker A, instead of answering this direct question, interrupts and shifts to \"why did you stop having a dog?\". This shows a lack of direct response and a forced change in focus.\n2.  **[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B's non-sequitur response:** Following Speaker A's question \"why did you stop having a dog?\", Speaker B completely ignores it and instead answers the question *Speaker B themselves previously asked to Speaker A* (\"What kind of dog did you have before?\"). This is a major breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence, making the conversation feel very unnatural and derailed.\n3.  **[00:37 - 00:40] Speaker B's unfounded assumption and question:** Speaker A asks a logical follow-up based on Speaker B's previous statement (\"are cats allowed in your building?\"). Speaker B completely ignores this question, makes a wild, unfounded assumption (\"You're living with a cat!\") and then asks a question based on that incorrect assumption (\"What's your cat's name?\"). There was no prior information in the dialogue to suggest Speaker A lives with a cat. This is a severe failure in logical consistency.\n4.  **[00:41 - 00:42] Speaker A's complicity:** Instead of correcting Speaker B's incorrect assumption or re-asking their original question, Speaker A plays along with the unfounded premise, further cementing the breakdown in logical flow.\n\nOverall, the conversation frequently deviates from a logical question-answer sequence, with speakers either ignoring direct questions, answering questions that weren't asked, or making baseless assumptions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits issues with extended overlaps.\n\n1.  **[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B:** Speaker A starts speaking at 00:09 while Speaker B is still speaking (finishing at 00:11). This results in a 2-second overlap (00:09 to 00:11). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this as an interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating it was a noticeable and prolonged overlap rather than a brief, natural one.\n2.  **[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B:** Speaker A starts speaking at 00:32 while Speaker B is still speaking (finishing at 00:33). This results in a 1-second overlap. While shorter than the first, it still contributes to the sense of overlapping turns.\n\nThere are no prolonged pauses detected between turns. However, the presence of two instances of overlapping turns, particularly the 2-second overlap, goes against the \"brief overlaps are acceptable, while prolonged overlapping turns are harmful\" criterion.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--396",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: May I borrow $50 from you?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: $50? Until when? How are you going to manage to\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: Come on! If I had a job, I'd lend you $50 without asking any questions.\n[00:10 - 00:11] Speaker B: But you don't have a job, do you?\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A: No, but I'm looking for one. I go to the employment office every day.\n[00:17 - 00:18] Speaker B: Why don't you go back home?\n[00:19 - 00:29] Speaker A: If I went home, I'd have to work on my father's farm. I don't like it at all. I'd rather stay here and find a job I like. All I need is a little more time\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but you didn't mention—how are you actually planning to pay me back?\n[00:32 - 00:40] Speaker A: Oh, right! I was going to say all I need is a little luck. But as soon as I land a job, I'll pay you back as quickly as I can.\n[00:40 - 00:45] Speaker B: Luck? OK, I'll let you have it. Maybe that may bring you your luck.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's initial request for money is met with relevant clarifying questions from Speaker B regarding repayment. Speaker A's responses, though sometimes defensive or evasive about the repayment plan (until Speaker B explicitly brings it up again), logically follow from Speaker B's inquiries. For example, Speaker A introduces the context of not having a job, which prompts Speaker B to ask about going home. Speaker A then justifies their decision to stay and seek a job they like. Crucially, Speaker B's \"Sorry to cut in\" successfully redirects the conversation back to the core issue of repayment, which Speaker A acknowledges and addresses. The conversation flows naturally, with each turn building upon the previous one, maintaining topic coherence throughout the discussion about the loan and the circumstances surrounding it.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits natural conversational fluency with minor, acceptable overlaps and short pauses.\n- **Overlap 1:** [00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A starts while Speaker B is still speaking [00:02 - 00:06]. This is a 1-second overlap (A starts at 0:05, B ends at 0:06). Speaker A's \"Come on!\" suggests an impatient interjection, which is a common and natural occurrence in conversation, especially when one speaker is trying to assert a point. It's brief and doesn't impede understanding.\n- **Overlap 2:** [00:28 - 00:32] Speaker B starts while Speaker A is still speaking [00:19 - 00:29]. This is a 1-second overlap (B starts at 0:28, A ends at 0:29). Speaker B explicitly says \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating an intentional but polite interruption to bring the conversation back to a critical point. This is also a natural and functional aspect of conversational dynamics.\n- **Pauses:** All pauses between turns are 1 second or less (e.g., 0:09 to 0:10, 0:11 to 0:12, 0:18 to 0:19). These are very short and typical of natural speech, not indicative of long pauses or hesitation that would disrupt flow.\nNeither the overlaps nor the pauses are prolonged or harmful; rather, they contribute to the realistic and dynamic feel of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--45841",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hi, I'm looking for some information on a specific topic and I was wondering if you could help me out.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Absolutely! What are you looking for specifically?\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A: Well, I'm not really sure. I just know that I need information on this topic for a project I'm working on,\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but do you have a deadline for this project? It might help me understand how quickly you need the information.\n[00:22 - 00:32] Speaker A: Oh, yes, it's due next week. But I haven't really narrowed down the focus yet. Do you have any keywords or phrases that you've been using to search for information?\n[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker B: Yeah, I've been searching for \"___\" and \"___\".\n[00:38 - 00:48] Speaker A: Okay, let me see if I can find anything. (The librarian types in the keywords and searches for websites) Here are a few websites that might have what you're looking for,\n[00:47 - 00:53] Speaker B: Oh, before I forget, do these sources include peer-reviewed articles? I need at least one for my project.\n[00:54 - 01:04] Speaker A: Yes, a couple of these are from academic journals, so they should include peer-reviewed articles. Let me know if you need help accessing them or finding specific information.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn builds directly upon the previous one, showing a clear understanding of the ongoing conversation.\n- Speaker A initiates with a clear request.\n- Speaker B responds by seeking clarification, which is highly relevant.\n- When Speaker A expresses uncertainty, Speaker B's question about a deadline is a strategic and relevant move to help narrow down the search.\n- Speaker A then proactively asks for keywords, maintaining the problem-solving focus.\n- Speaker B provides these, leading to Speaker A's action (searching).\n- Speaker B's follow-up question about peer-reviewed articles is highly relevant to an academic project and a common requirement, fitting perfectly into the context of finding suitable sources.\n- Speaker A's final response directly answers the question and offers further assistance, maintaining the helpful interaction.\nThere are no irrelevant statements, topic shifts, or points of confusion regarding the content.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good interactional fluency.\n- There are no long pauses that would disrupt the flow of conversation.\n- There are two brief overlaps detected:\n    - [00:15 - 00:16]: Speaker B overlaps Speaker A. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which indicates a polite and natural interruption, rather than a disruptive one. This is a very brief (1 second) and acknowledged overlap.\n    - [00:47 - 00:48]: Speaker B overlaps Speaker A. Speaker B uses the phrase \"Oh, before I forget,\" which signals a sudden thought they wanted to interject, again a common and often natural occurrence in dynamic conversation. This is also a very brief (1 second) overlap.\nAs per the scoring criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" Both observed overlaps fall into this acceptable category, as they are brief and seem to represent natural conversational dynamics rather than harmful interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--19759",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: Hey! I was just wondering if you could do me a huge favor.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: Uh, sure. What is it?\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B: Well, my son is supposed to be coming home from college today, but his flight got delayed and he won't be able to make it\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: Oh, do you know what time his flight is expected to land?\n[00:17 - 00:26] Speaker B: Yeah, it's supposed to land around 11 PM, but he won't be able to get here until late tonight. I was wondering if you could let him in when he gets here and give him a key so he can let himself in.\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker A: Yeah, no problem. I'll be happy to do that.\n[00:31 - 00:33] Speaker B: Thank you so much! I really appreciate it.\n[00:33 - 00:35] Speaker A: No problem. I'll see you later.\n[00:35 - 00:37] Speaker B: Alright, thanks again.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building coherently on the established topic of Speaker B asking Speaker A for a favor regarding their son's delayed flight. Speaker B clearly states the initial intention to ask a favor, Speaker A responds with an invitation to elaborate, Speaker B explains the context, Speaker A asks a relevant clarifying question, and Speaker B provides the answer and the specific favor request. The subsequent turns involve acceptance, gratitude, and a polite closing. There are no instances of off-topic remarks, misunderstandings, or illogical jumps in conversation. The topic coherence is maintained throughout, demonstrating a natural and effective exchange of information and intentions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. I've analyzed the timestamps for extended overlaps and long pauses.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap between [00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B and [00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A. Speaker A begins speaking at 0:13 while Speaker B finishes at 0:14. This is a 1-second overlap. Given the nature of Speaker A's interjection (\"Oh,\"), this is a brief and natural conversational overlap, not an extended or harmful one that disrupts communication. The instructions explicitly state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\"\n- **Pauses:** All pauses between turns are short (typically 1 second). For instance, 0:16 to 0:17, 0:26 to 0:27, 0:30 to 0:31. These are natural, brief pauses that allow for turn-taking and processing, and do not qualify as \"long pauses\" that would impede the flow of conversation. The dialogue flows smoothly without any unnatural hesitations or silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--102562",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hi, Rebekka. I'm so glad I was able to help you during the flood. How are you feeling now?\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: I'm feeling a lot better, thanks. I was really scared when the water started rising and\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I just remembered—do you have everything you need now? Like, are you able to stay somewhere safe?\n[00:17 - 00:26] Speaker B: Yes, I'm staying at my sister's place for now, so I'm safe. I was saying I was really scared when the water started rising, but you came and rescued me. I'm really grateful.\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker A: I'm just glad I was able to help. It was a really dangerous situation.\n[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker B: Yeah, I know. I'm just glad you were there to help me. Thanks again, Kendric.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one. Speaker A's initial question about Rebekka's well-being is directly answered by Speaker B. Although Speaker A interrupts at [00:09 - 00:17], the interruption is explicitly acknowledged (\"Sorry to interrupt\") and the new topic (\"do you have everything you need now? Like, are you able to stay somewhere safe?\") is highly relevant and logically connected to the flood event and Rebekka's current situation. Speaker B handles this interruption gracefully by first answering the new questions and then skillfully returning to their original interrupted thought (\"I was saying I was really scared when the water started rising\"). This demonstrates excellent topic coherence and the ability to manage conversational flow despite a momentary shift. The subsequent turns continue to build logically on the shared experience and expressed gratitude.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally very good. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural conversational rhythm. There is one instance of overlap at [00:09 - 00:10] where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This overlap lasts approximately 1 second. As per the guidelines, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" A 1-second overlap is considered brief and natural, especially since Speaker A immediately follows it with an apology (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), acknowledging the overlap and making it part of a realistic, albeit slightly unpolished, interaction. This is not an \"extended overlap\" that would be considered harmful. Overall, the flow feels natural and unhindered by significant disfluencies.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--528",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi! I've got a question for you about renovating our house.\n[00:04 - 00:04] Speaker B: What's up?\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: Well, our driveway is gravel.\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: That doesn't sound so bad.\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A: Well, it's really ugly and messy. We can't sweep it all up, so we have to drive on it for the next few months,\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but have you thought about using a different material, like pavers or asphalt, instead of concrete?\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker A: I hadn't considered pavers or asphalt. This is frustrating. Is there a way to get a driveway replaced?\n[00:29 - 00:33] Speaker B: Ugh, no. You have to get a new house to replace your old one.\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker A: A new house? Why don't we just pave the driveway with concrete?\n[00:38 - 00:41] Speaker B: That's a possibility. But that costs a lot of money.\n[00:41 - 00:44] Speaker A: It might be worth it if the driveway looked nice.\n[00:44 - 00:47] Speaker B: Maybe we could fix it up a bit to make it look nicer.\n[00:47 - 00:49] Speaker A: That sounds like a great idea.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue has a significant flaw.\n- Speaker A introduces the topic of renovating their house, specifically their gravel driveway.\n- Speaker B initially engages appropriately, but at [00:16 - 00:22], B introduces \"concrete\" as a material to avoid, even though A hasn't mentioned concrete, only that their driveway is gravel. This is a minor dip in coherence, anticipating A's thoughts rather than reacting directly to \"gravel.\"\n- The most significant issue occurs at [00:29 - 00:33], where Speaker B responds to A's question about replacing a driveway with \"Ugh, no. You have to get a new house to replace your old one.\" This is completely illogical and inconsistent with common knowledge about home renovations. Replacing a driveway does not require buying a new house. This response severely breaks the logical consistency and topic coherence of the conversation.\n- Speaker A correctly identifies this inconsistency and tries to bring the conversation back to a practical solution (paving with concrete).\n- Speaker B's final suggestion at [00:44 - 00:47], \"Maybe we could fix it up a bit to make it look nicer,\" is vague and a step back from the discussion of concrete paving, which A was considering for a \"nice\" look. While not irrelevant, it lacks the specificity and progression seen earlier.\n\nDue to the egregious logical inconsistency from Speaker B regarding replacing a driveway, the response relevance is significantly compromised.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is good.\n- There are no indications of long pauses between speaker turns based on the timestamps provided. The gaps are typically 0 or 1 second, which are very short and natural in conversation.\n- The transcript explicitly mentions \"Sorry to interrupt\" at [00:16], indicating a brief, acknowledged overlap. According to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this falls into that category. There are no extended or disruptive overlaps apparent.\n- The turns flow smoothly from a timing perspective, and speakers take turns without significant delays.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--78868",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: So, Damarius, I read your story and I was really impressed.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Thank you! It's been a lot of work, but it's been worth it.\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: Absolutely! So tell me a little bit more about your company. What do you do?\n[00:12 - 00:21] Speaker B: We're a marketing firm that specializes in social media marketing. Basically, we help companies promote themselves through social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram to\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I'm curious—how do you stay ahead of the constant changes in social media algorithms?\n[00:28 - 00:37] Speaker B: Great question! We actually have a team dedicated to monitoring those changes and adjusting our strategies accordingly. But as I was saying, we also use platforms like Twitter.\n[00:37 - 00:43] Speaker A: That sounds like a really great service! I'm sure there's a lot of demand for that these days.\n[00:43 - 00:51] Speaker B: Yeah, there definitely is. We've been growing pretty rapidly lately, which has been amazing. But it's also been a lot of work to keep up with everything!\n[00:52 - 00:55] Speaker A: I can imagine! So how did you come up with the idea for your company?\n[00:56 - 01:08] Speaker B: Well, I actually started out working in traditional advertising. But I quickly realized that the industry was changing and that social media was becoming increasingly important for businesses. So I decided to pivot my\n[01:07 - 01:11] Speaker A: And you saw that gap in the market, right? That's impressive foresight.\n[01:11 - 01:20] Speaker B: Exactly! I saw the gap and knew I had to act on it. So I decided to start my own company that focused on social media marketing. And it's been going really well so far!\n[01:21 - 01:25] Speaker A: That's amazing! I'm really impressed by what you've accomplished.\n[01:25 - 01:26] Speaker B: Thank you!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker A consistently asks relevant follow-up questions or provides appropriate reactions to Speaker B's statements (e.g., asking about the company after an initial compliment, asking about algorithm changes after social media marketing is mentioned, asking about the company's origin). Speaker B provides direct and coherent answers to Speaker A's questions and manages to maintain their narrative even when briefly interrupted. The conversation flows logically from an initial impression to company details, challenges, and origin, demonstrating excellent topic coherence and logical consistency throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is also very high. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. While there are a couple of instances where Speaker A briefly overlaps Speaker B ([00:21] and [01:07]), these are explicitly acknowledged by Speaker A (\"Sorry to jump in\") or are very brief, natural interjections that demonstrate active listening and engagement (e.g., completing Speaker B's thought or asking a clarifying question immediately related to the ongoing statement). These overlaps are not prolonged or disruptive; rather, they contribute to the natural, dynamic feel of the conversation, indicating engaged participants rather than problematic interruptions. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--16630",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I didn't mean to hit him, officer. It was an accident. I swerved to avoid a cat and lost control of my steering wheel\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Wait, so you're telling me that you accidentally hit this man with your car because you were trying to avoid a cat?\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: Yes, that's what happened. I feel really bad about it.\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker B: Did you see the cat before you hit the man?\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker A: No, I didn't see the cat until after I hit him. I swerved to try and avoid it, but it was too late to\n[00:25 - 00:27] Speaker B: And you didn't see the man until after you hit him?\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker A: Right, I didn't see him until after I hit him with my car.\n[00:31 - 00:33] Speaker B: Where were you coming from before the accident?\n[00:34 - 00:36] Speaker A: I was coming from the grocery store.\n[00:36 - 00:37] Speaker B: And where were you going?\n[00:38 - 00:39] Speaker A: I was going home.\n[00:40 - 00:43] Speaker B: So you weren't paying attention to where you were going when the accident happened?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B, acting as an interrogator, consistently asks follow-up questions that build upon Speaker A's previous statements. For example, after Speaker A claims to have swerved to avoid a cat but then states they didn't see it until \"after I hit him,\" Speaker B immediately picks up on this logical inconsistency by asking, \"And you didn't see the man until after you hit him?\" This shows astute listening and a coherent line of questioning. Speaker A's responses, while containing internal contradictions within their *own narrative* (e.g., swerving to avoid something not seen until after), are *relevant* to the questions asked. The topic remains consistently focused on the accident and the circumstances surrounding it, maintaining strong topic coherence throughout the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits excellent fluency. There is one brief overlap observed at [00:06 - 00:12] where Speaker B starts talking one second before Speaker A finishes. This is a very common and natural occurrence in conversational dialogue, often indicating active listening, interjection for clarification, or slight anticipation, and does not constitute a \"prolonged overlap\" that harms the conversation. Similarly, the pauses between turns (e.g., [00:18 - 00:19], [00:33 - 00:34], [00:37 - 00:38]) are all very short, typically one second, which is perfectly natural and allows for processing and formulating a response. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that disrupt the flow of communication.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--483",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Excuse me. I am interested in getting a library card.\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: Sure, let me give you an application. You can fill it out right here at the front desk,\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Oh, by the way, do I need to bring any other documents besides my driver's license?\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: Just your driver's license will be fine. Now, here's the application form.\n[00:18 - 00:19] Speaker A: OK, here it is.\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker B: Let me take a look at this for you. May I have your driver's license, please?\n[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker A: Here's my license and form.\n[00:26 - 00:33] Speaker B: Okay, Mr. Murray, you seem to have filled the form out all right. Are you familiar with our rules and borrowing limits,\n[00:32 - 00:36] Speaker A: Actually, I'm not too sure about the fines. Could you explain that to me?\n[00:37 - 00:46] Speaker B: Of course. We have fines for overdue books, and the specific amounts are listed on the handout. By the way, the hours and limitations are also printed on the card and this handout.\n[00:46 - 00:47] Speaker A: OK.\n[00:48 - 00:51] Speaker B: Thank you for joining the library; we look forward to serving you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one, maintaining a clear topic coherence around the process of getting a library card.\n- Speaker B consistently provides relevant information and actions (application, asking for license, explaining rules) in response to Speaker A's needs and questions.\n- Speaker A's questions and responses (e.g., about documents, fines) are always pertinent to the ongoing transaction.\n- The conversation flows logically from the initial request to receiving the card and understanding the rules. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps detected:\n    - [00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A starts at 0:07 while Speaker B finishes at 0:08 (1-second overlap).\n    - [00:32 - 00:36] Speaker A starts at 0:32 while Speaker B finishes at 0:33 (1-second overlap).\n    These are minor, brief overlaps that are natural in conversational turn-taking and do not impede understanding or indicate communication breakdown. They suggest a smooth, responsive interaction rather than disruptive interruptions.\n- **Pauses:** The pauses between turns are consistently short (typically 0-1 second, e.g., A ends 0:12, B starts 0:13; B ends 0:17, A starts 0:18; A ends 0:47, B starts 0:48). There are no long or awkward silences that would disrupt the flow. The quick back-and-forth indicates active listening and readiness to respond from both participants.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--31672",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi Olyvia. How are you today?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Doing well, Edin. How about yourself?\n[00:05 - 00:14] Speaker A: I'm doing fine, thanks. I was just wondering if you could help me out with something. I'm looking for a new church to attend and I was hoping you could recommend some\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker B: Oh, are you looking for something more traditional or contemporary in terms of worship style? That might help narrow it down.\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker A: Well, I'm not really sure. I've been attending the same church for a while and it just doesn't seem to be meeting my needs anymore.\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker B: I see. Do you have any particular requirements?\n[00:31 - 00:38] Speaker A: Not really. I just want a church that is friendly and welcoming, where I can feel like I belong and\n[00:37 - 00:45] Speaker B: Sorry, just to clarify, are you also looking for a church that has community activities or small groups? That could be important for feeling like you belong.\n[00:45 - 00:51] Speaker A: Yes, that's a good point. A church with active community involvement would definitely be a plus.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates a request for church recommendations, and Speaker B's subsequent questions are highly relevant and logical steps to narrow down the search and understand Speaker A's specific needs (e.g., worship style, requirements, community involvement). Speaker A's answers directly address Speaker B's clarifying questions, providing more detail about their preferences and evolving understanding of what they are looking for in a new church. The conversation flows naturally from a general request to a more specific definition of needs, indicating excellent relevance and coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; most transitions are immediate. There are two instances of brief overlaps ([00:13 - 00:14] and [00:37 - 00:38]), both lasting only 1 second. These short overlaps are typical of natural, enthusiastic conversation where one speaker anticipates or responds quickly to the other, rather than being prolonged and disruptive. Speaker B even prefaces one overlap with \"Sorry, just to clarify,\" which indicates a polite and mindful approach to turn-taking within the natural flow of conversation. Overall, the pacing feels natural and conversational, without any significant fluency issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--114",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Jack, where's your car?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: I got rid of that clunker. This is my new one.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: Is that right? This surely beats the the old\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry, I just have to ask—how much did this set you back? It looks pretty pricey.\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker A: Yeah, it costed a bundle, alright? But I was saying, this surely beats the old one, right?\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker B: Definitely, hop in, I'll give you a ride.\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker A: Ok. Boy, this looks expensive.\n[00:27 - 00:29] Speaker B: Yeah, it costed a bundle, alright?\n[00:29 - 00:32] Speaker A: Wow, this thing can haul.\n[00:32 - 00:35] Speaker B: Yeah, this sucker is the fastest thing I've ever owned.\n[00:35 - 00:41] Speaker A: I believe it. Hoo, this car corners like it's on rails. It's\n[00:40 - 00:45] Speaker B: Wait, did you mention if this has any special features or is it just speed and handling?\n[00:45 - 00:51] Speaker A: It does have some cool features, but I was going to say, it corners like it's on rails.\n[00:51 - 00:53] Speaker B: We are on the highway. Find the pound shade.\n[00:54 - 00:56] Speaker A: Wow, this car can really burn rubber.\n[00:57 - 00:58] Speaker B: It's a great feeling.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains good logical consistency and topic coherence, revolving around Speaker B's new car, its cost, and its performance. Most turns build naturally on the previous one. However, there is one significant issue:\n- At `[00:51 - 00:53]`, Speaker B states: \"We are on the highway. Find the pound shade.\" This utterance is highly illogical and incoherent in the context of Speaker A's preceding statement about the car \"cornering like it's on rails.\" It appears to be either a complete non-sequitur, a very obscure idiom, or a transcription error that renders it nonsensical. Speaker A then completely ignores this statement in their next turn, further highlighting its irrelevance. This singular instance constitutes a significant breakdown in topic coherence and logical consistency, as it interrupts the flow with an unrelated or garbled statement that is then disregarded.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with quick turn-taking and no long pauses. The dialogue feels natural in its pacing. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n- At `[00:08 - 00:09]`, Speaker B overlaps Speaker A for approximately 1 second. Speaker B acknowledges the interruption with \"Sorry, I just have to ask,\" which softens its impact and indicates awareness.\n- At `[00:40 - 00:41]`, Speaker B again overlaps Speaker A for approximately 1 second.\nAccording to the criteria, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" Both overlaps are brief (around 1 second) and do not appear to be \"prolonged\" or disruptive. They are typical of natural conversation where speakers might slightly anticipate or interject. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--32913",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm thinking about getting you a different type of flower today, Joselin. What do you think - lilies, daisies, or roses? I\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but I was just wondering, have you ever considered getting orchids? They're quite unique and elegant.\n[00:14 - 00:23] Speaker A: Orchids are beautiful, but I was thinking of something more cheerful today. I think sunflowers would be nice. They're cheerful and they always make me think of summertime.\n[00:24 - 00:34] Speaker B: You're right, sunflowers are definitely cheerful. But then again, so are daisies. And lilies are really beautiful too. I don't know, I can't decide! What do you think?\n[00:34 - 00:41] Speaker A: Hmm...I'm not sure. They're all pretty flowers, so it's tough to choose just one. Maybe we could go with\n[00:40 - 00:44] Speaker B: Oh! What if we let the florist decide? Sometimes they have the best eye for mixing flowers.\n[00:44 - 00:53] Speaker A: That's a great idea! I'm sure the florist can put together a nice arrangement with all three types of flowers. Thanks for your help, Joselin.\n[00:53 - 00:57] Speaker B: No problem, Yasser. I'm always happy to help you out.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building upon the conversation naturally.\n- Speaker B's initial suggestion of orchids (0:07-0:13) is a relevant alternative to the flowers Speaker A initially proposed.\n- Speaker A's explanation for preferring sunflowers (0:14-0:23) maintains topic coherence by clarifying the desired mood (\"cheerful\").\n- Speaker B's subsequent indecision and return to original options (0:24-0:34) is a logical progression of a choice-making process.\n- Speaker A's expression of difficulty (0:34-0:41) and Speaker B's immediate solution (0:40-0:44) demonstrate collaborative problem-solving, staying perfectly on topic.\n- The final turns involve acceptance and polite closing remarks, all of which are highly relevant and consistent with the dialogue's objective.\nThere are no instances of topic drift, illogical responses, or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - [0:07 - 0:13] Speaker B starts speaking at 0:07 while Speaker A finishes at 0:08. Speaker B explicitly apologizes (\"Sorry to jump in\"), which indicates politeness and manages the overlap gracefully, making it feel very natural and non-disruptive.\n    - [0:40 - 0:44] Speaker B starts at 0:40 while Speaker A is still speaking and cuts off Speaker A's sentence. This overlap is brief and collaborative, as Speaker B immediately provides a solution (\"Oh! What if we let the florist decide?\") to Speaker A's expressed difficulty (\"Maybe we could go with\"). This type of interruption often occurs in natural, engaged conversations where one speaker anticipates or completes the other's thought.\n- Pauses between speaker turns are consistently short (0-1 second), indicating smooth and efficient turn-taking. There are no prolonged silences that would suggest hesitation, disengagement, or a breakdown in communication.\nOverall, the brief overlaps and short pauses contribute to a natural, fluid, and highly engaged conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--685",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, how are you?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Hi! Are you cooking tonight?\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: Yes, I am! My husband and I have been craving Indian food, so I've been researching some recipes.\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B: I am happy to be on this journey with you! Do you want to be my friend? I need help with the ingredients list\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, I just got curious—what Indian recipes are you planning to try tonight?\n[00:22 - 00:30] Speaker B: I haven't decided yet, but I was thinking of trying a chicken curry and maybe some naan bread. I'd love to be your friend! I love helping people with their cooking.\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker A: That sounds delicious! I'm glad we can have this experience together. I'm excited to get started with\n[00:36 - 00:42] Speaker B: Before we dive in, do you have all the spices needed for the recipes? Sometimes they can be hard to find.\n[00:42 - 00:50] Speaker A: That's a good point. I need to check my pantry for spices like garam masala and turmeric. I'm excited to get started!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in logical consistency and topic coherence, primarily from Speaker B.\n1.  **[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Hi! Are you cooking tonight?** - Speaker B immediately shifts the topic from \"how are you?\" to cooking, which is an abrupt start but not entirely incoherent if Speaker B has a specific agenda.\n2.  **[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B: I am happy to be on this journey with you! Do you want to be my friend? I need help with the ingredients list** - This turn is highly problematic. \"I am happy to be on this journey with you!\" is vague and doesn't logically follow Speaker A's statement about researching recipes. The sudden question \"Do you want to be my friend?\" is completely out of context and irrelevant to the ongoing topic. Furthermore, \"I need help with the ingredients list\" contradicts the previous sentiment of \"being on this journey with you\" and assumes Speaker A is cooking *with* Speaker B, or is expected to help Speaker B, which hasn't been established. This shows a major breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence.\n3.  **[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, I just got curious—what Indian recipes are you planning to try tonight?** - Speaker A attempts to repair the conversation by acknowledging the interruption (indicating the previous turn was out of place) and steering the conversation back to the established topic of Indian cooking. This shows good conversational repair, but highlights the prior coherence issue.\n4.  **[00:22 - 00:30] Speaker B: I haven't decided yet, but I was thinking of trying a chicken curry and maybe some naan bread. I'd love to be your friend! I love helping people with their cooking.** - Speaker B answers the recipe question, which is relevant. However, Speaker B then reiterates \"I'd love to be your friend!\" which is still out of place. Critically, Speaker B follows this with \"I love helping people with their cooking,\" which directly contradicts their earlier statement \"I need help with the ingredients list.\" This is a significant logical inconsistency and demonstrates a lack of coherent persona or memory within the dialogue.\n\nWhile Speaker A consistently tries to maintain logical consistency and topic coherence, Speaker B's responses introduce multiple, significant, and repeated issues that disrupt the flow and meaning of the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue exhibits brief overlaps but no prolonged pauses or extended overlaps that severely impede communication.\n\n1.  **[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, I just got curious—what Indian recipes are you planning to try tonight?** (Starts at 00:15, Speaker B finishes at 00:16) - There is a 1-second overlap where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their previous turn. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness of the overlap and an attempt at polite turn-taking, making it a brief and acceptable occurrence rather than a harmful one.\n2.  **[00:36 - 00:42] Speaker B: Before we dive in, do you have all the spices needed for the recipes? Sometimes they can be hard to find.** (Starts at 00:36, Speaker A finishes at 00:37) - There is another 1-second overlap here, where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A mid-sentence (\"I'm excited to get started with\"). While Speaker A is cut off, this is a brief overlap (1 second) and not \"prolonged.\"\n\nThere are no noticeable long pauses between turns. The brief overlaps are within the acceptable range as per the instructions (\"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\"). They do not create confusion or significant disruption to understanding.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--455",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Do you like kids?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not particularly, no.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker A: Why not?\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker B: Well, I have seen a lot of the effects of having kids. It's just not for me. I think my kids would be better off without me because\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but what specific effects are you referring to? Are they financial, emotional, or something else?\n[00:18 - 00:26] Speaker B: It's a mix of both, really. Financial strain, emotional stress, and the time commitment. My life would be a lot easier if I didn't have kids.\n[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker A: That's a really pessimistic way of looking at it.\n[00:29 - 00:33] Speaker B: It's true though. My life would be a lot easier if I didn't have kids.\n[00:33 - 00:43] Speaker A: Well, there's nothing wrong with saying \"I don't want kids\" though. But when you mentioned earlier that your kids would be better off without you, what did you mean by that? Did you\n[00:42 - 00:51] Speaker B: I just meant that my personal issues and lack of desire to have kids might negatively impact them. Oh sure there isn't, but my opinion doesn't matter. It's just the way I feel.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A consistently asks follow-up questions that directly relate to Speaker B's previous statements and explanations (\"Why not?\", \"what specific effects are you referring to?\", \"when you mentioned earlier that your kids would be better off without you, what did you mean by that?\"). Speaker B's answers are direct and coherent, elaborating on their stance regarding not wanting kids and clarifying their reasons (e.g., \"It's a mix of both, really. Financial strain, emotional stress, and the time commitment,\" and explaining \"my personal issues and lack of desire to have kids might negatively impact them\"). The conversation maintains a clear topic focus on Speaker B's perspective on having children, with Speaker A effectively probing for deeper understanding without introducing irrelevant topics. Even Speaker B's slightly fragmented ending \"Oh sure there isn't, but my opinion doesn't matter. It's just the way I feel\" is logically connected to the preceding dialogue (acknowledging A's point about nothing being wrong with saying \"I don't want kids\" while still expressing a personal sense of resignation).\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The dialogue features two very brief overlaps (1 second each) at [00:10 - 00:11] and [00:42 - 00:43]. In both cases, these are functional overlaps where one speaker interrupts briefly to ask a clarifying question or provide an immediate answer, which is characteristic of natural, engaged conversation and not prolonged or disruptive. Speaker A even apologizes for one interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt\"). There is also a very short pause of 1 second between [00:17] and [00:18]. As per the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these examples fall well within that definition. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would hinder the flow of the conversation. The turns are timely and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--48600",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hi there!\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Hey! How are you doing?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm doing alright, thanks for asking. What about your day?\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker B: I'm good. By the way, do you have an umbrella with you? It really looks like it could start raining any minute.\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker A: Oh, I didn't even think about that! I hope my friend arrives soon, though. He's supposed to meet me here.\n[00:18 - 00:22] Speaker B: Yeah, hopefully he'll be here before it starts raining. Do you know how long he'll take to\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker A: He should be here any minute now. Thanks for talking with me.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, and topics are either maintained or transitioned smoothly.\n- Speaker B's \"How are you doing?\" naturally follows Speaker A's greeting.\n- Speaker A's response \"I'm doing alright...\" and reciprocation \"What about your day?\" are perfectly relevant.\n- Speaker B's \"I'm good. By the way...\" is a natural conversational shift, linking their well-being to a new observation (the weather).\n- Speaker A's \"Oh, I didn't even think about that!\" directly addresses B's weather concern and then logically connects it to their friend's arrival.\n- Speaker B's \"Yeah, hopefully he'll be here before it starts raining. Do you know how long he'll take to\" is a relevant follow-up question related to the friend's arrival mentioned by A.\n- Speaker A's \"He should be here any minute now. Thanks for talking with me.\" directly answers B's implied question and politely concludes the interaction. The concluding remark, while a bit abrupt, is not irrelevant to the ongoing interaction and can be seen as a natural way to end a brief chat.\nOverall, the dialogue exhibits high logical consistency and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good, reflecting natural conversation.\nThere are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  **[00:05 - 00:06]**: Speaker B starts at 0:05 while Speaker A finishes at 0:06. This is a 1-second overlap.\n2.  **[00:21 - 00:22]**: Speaker A starts at 0:21 while Speaker B finishes at 0:22. This is also a 1-second overlap.\nAs per the instructions, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\". A 1-second overlap is considered brief and is very common in natural, dynamic conversations, often indicating engagement or anticipation rather than a problem. Neither of these overlaps is \"extended\" or \"prolonged.\" Speaker B's sentence being cut off (\"Do you know how long he'll take to\") due to Speaker A's entry is also a common occurrence in fast-paced conversation and doesn't significantly harm fluency, especially since Speaker A's subsequent turn addresses the likely completion of B's question. There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--608",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I'm painting my new apartment!\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Are you getting rid of anything in your new apartment?\n[00:04 - 00:13] Speaker A: Well, I don't really have any room to keep furniture, but I am painting the wall in my bedroom. I'm painting it a bright yellow to\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker B: Bright blue sounds interesting! But do you think it might be too bold for a bedroom? Sometimes softer colors can be more relaxing.\n[00:19 - 00:28] Speaker A: I considered that, but I really love vibrant colors. By the way, I haven't mentioned yet that I'm also planning to repaint the living room in a\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker B: Oh, that's great! What color are you thinking for the living room?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance starts strong. Speaker B's initial question, \"Are you getting rid of anything in your new apartment?\", is a reasonable follow-up to Speaker A's \"I'm painting my new apartment!\", as it relates to apartment changes. Speaker A responds coherently, addressing the furniture aspect and then returning to the painting topic, even specifying a color (\"bright yellow\").\n\nHowever, a significant issue arises when Speaker B misinterprets Speaker A's \"bright yellow\" as \"Bright blue\". This is a direct logical inconsistency and a breakdown in topic coherence, as Speaker B then comments on a color that was not mentioned. Speaker A, instead of correcting the misunderstanding, just continues the conversation, saying \"I considered that, but I really love vibrant colors,\" which indirectly addresses B's point about bold colors but doesn't clarify the specific color discrepancy. The conversation then shifts to another painting project, which brings back coherence, but the earlier misinterpretation by Speaker B is a clear flaw in logical consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue has notable issues due to extended overlaps.\n- At [00:12 - 00:19], Speaker B begins speaking (\"Bright blue sounds interesting!\") while Speaker A is still in the middle of their sentence (\"I'm painting it a bright yellow to\"). Speaker A's sentence is cut off at [00:13] by Speaker B's interjection. This is a 1-second extended overlap that disrupts the flow and indicates a lack of turn-taking etiquette.\n- Similarly, at [00:27 - 00:30], Speaker B again starts speaking (\"Oh, that's great!\") while Speaker A is still concluding their sentence (\"planning to repaint the living room in a\"). Speaker A's sentence is cut off at [00:28]. This is another 1-second extended overlap, further demonstrating a pattern of interruptions.\n\nThese are not brief, acceptable overlaps but rather instances where one speaker cuts off the other's ongoing thought, making the conversation feel rushed and unnatural. There are no long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--224",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Is that the Japanese Restaurant?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Speaking. May I help you?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: What kind of food do you serve?\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: We serve a great variety of popular Japanese dishes in set courses, and also many meat dishes like\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but do you have any vegetarian options as well?\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: Yes, we do offer vegetarian dishes. As I was saying, we also have many meat dishes.\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker A: I see. That sounds fine. Until what time are you open?\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker B: We are open until 10 but our last order for dinner is at 9:30 so you\n[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker A: Oh, one more thing—do we need a reservation if we're coming around 9?\n[00:33 - 00:39] Speaker B: Reservations are recommended, but not required. Just to finish, our last order is at 9:30 pm.\n[00:40 - 00:42] Speaker A: Fine. We'll be there before that time.\n[00:42 - 00:44] Speaker B: Thank you, sir. We look forward to welcoming you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance.\n- **Logical consistency:** Speaker B consistently provides direct and informative answers to Speaker A's questions. For example, when asked about food, Speaker B details types of dishes. When asked about opening hours, Speaker B provides the time and relevant information about the last order. Speaker B also logically attempts to finish their previous thought after being interrupted (e.g., \"As I was saying, we also have many meat dishes,\" and \"Just to finish, our last order is at 9:30 pm.\"). Speaker A's questions are also logical follow-ups based on the information provided by Speaker B (e.g., asking about reservations after hearing the closing time).\n- **Topic coherence:** The conversation remains entirely focused on the inquiry about the Japanese restaurant. All questions and answers relate to the restaurant's offerings, hours, and policies. There are no irrelevant tangents or shifts in topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two instances of brief overlaps where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B (`[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker A:` overlapping with `[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B:` and `[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker A:` overlapping with `[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker B:`). In both cases, the actual concurrent speech overlap is brief (approximately 1 second). Speaker A acknowledges the interruption with phrases like \"Sorry to jump in\" and \"Oh, one more thing,\" which makes them feel more natural and less jarring than a rude or unacknowledged cut-off. Speaker B handles these interruptions gracefully by directly addressing the new question and then attempting to complete their original thought, which contributes to the natural flow rather than disrupting it. These are not \"extended overlaps\" as defined by the criteria but rather brief, acceptable instances of turn-taking in natural conversation.\n- **Pauses:** There are small pauses (1 second or less) between turns, which are perfectly natural and do not hinder the flow of conversation. There are no prolonged pauses detected.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--52723",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: So, can you tell me a little bit about your company?\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: Sure. We're a small startup that's been around for about two years. We develop software for businesses of all sizes.\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: That sounds really interesting. What kind of software do you help businesses\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but I wanted to quickly ask—what's the size of your current team?\n[00:19 - 00:37] Speaker A: Oh, we have a team of about 15 people right now, mostly developers and a few sales and support staff. But back to your question, we mainly focus on enterprise resource planning (ERP) software. This helps businesses manage their resources more effectively and efficiently.\n[00:38 - 00:44] Speaker B: Wow, that sounds like it could be really helpful for companies. Do you have any case studies or success stories that you can share?\n[00:45 - 00:55] Speaker A: Yes, we actually have a few case studies on our website that show how our software has helped improve the operations of our clients' businesses. I can send you the link after\n[00:54 - 00:59] Speaker B: Actually, if you could give me a brief overview of one of those case studies right now, that would be great!\n[00:59 - 01:20] Speaker A: Sure! One of our clients, a mid-sized manufacturing company, was able to reduce their operational costs by 20% within the first six months of using our ERP software. They were struggling with inventory management and production scheduling, and our solution helped streamline those processes, leading to significant cost savings.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A consistently demonstrates excellent response relevance throughout the dialogue. They answer Speaker B's questions directly, provide the requested information (e.g., about ERP software, case studies), and even adeptly handle Speaker B's interruptions by addressing the new topic before steering back to the original one (\"But back to your question...\"). This shows strong logical consistency and topic coherence from Speaker A's side.\n\nHowever, Speaker B exhibits significant issues in response relevance.\n1.  At [00:13], Speaker A is in the middle of asking \"What kind of software do you help businesses\". Speaker B interrupts to ask \"what's the size of your current team?\". This is an abrupt and unrelated topic shift, demonstrating a clear lack of topic coherence and logical consistency with Speaker A's current line of inquiry. Although Speaker B apologizes (\"Sorry to jump in\"), the interruption severely disrupts the flow of information requested by Speaker A.\n2.  At [00:54], Speaker A is offering to \"send you the link after\" regarding case studies. Speaker B again interrupts to demand immediate action (\"if you could give me a brief overview of one of those case studies right now, that would be great!\"). While this is still related to case studies, it directly overrides Speaker A's proposed logical next step, indicating a lack of logical consistency in following Speaker A's conversational lead and an attempt to control the interaction.\n\nThese two instances from Speaker B represent significant issues in maintaining the natural logical progression and topic coherence of the conversation, particularly the first instance which is a complete tangent.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue contains two instances of brief overlaps initiated by Speaker B:\n1.  [00:13 - 00:14]: Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. This overlap is approximately 1 second.\n2.  [00:54 - 00:55]: Speaker B interrupts Speaker A again. This overlap is also approximately 1 second.\n\nAccording to the scoring criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" Both overlaps detected are brief (1 second). There are no extended overlaps or long pauses between speaker turns. Therefore, strictly based on the duration of overlaps and pauses, the dialogue does not exhibit significant issues regarding interactional fluency as defined by \"extended overlaps\" or \"long pauses\". However, the *pattern* of Speaker B interrupting, even briefly, does impact the overall smoothness and naturalness of the interaction, even if the individual overlaps are not \"extended.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--108",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Mr. Wilson. We are very regretful about the mistakes in goods. I am very sorry and we will be responsible for the inconvenience caused\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: I understand, but I must ask, how do you plan to handle the loss we sustained due to this mistake?\n[00:12 - 00:27] Speaker A: We have no choice but to hold you responsible for the loss. The first problem is supposed to be solved after the investigation. About the second problem, I admit it's our fault, so we will exchange all merchandise that falls short of our quality standards\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but could you clarify how long the exchange process will take? It's crucial for us to manage our inventory accordingly.\n[00:34 - 00:43] Speaker A: Certainly, I was going to mention that we will expedite the process. But just to confirm, we will exchange all merchandise that falls short of our sample.\n[00:43 - 00:46] Speaker B: Well. I hope there won't be such things no more.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue presents a significant issue. Speaker A's turn at [00:12 - 00:27] directly contradicts their initial apology and statement of responsibility.\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A** expresses regret and takes responsibility: \"We are very regretful about the mistakes in goods. I am very sorry and we will be responsible for the inconvenience caused.\"\n2.  **[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B** logically follows up on this by asking how Speaker A plans to \"handle the loss we sustained due to this mistake,\" clearly expecting Speaker A to take responsibility for the loss.\n3.  **[00:12 - 00:27] Speaker A** then responds: \"We have no choice but to hold you responsible for the loss.\" This is a stark logical inconsistency. After apologizing and taking responsibility for \"inconvenience caused,\" Speaker A immediately shifts blame for the \"loss\" back to Speaker B. This completely undermines the previous statement and makes the conversation illogical and incoherent. The subsequent mention of \"the first problem\" and \"the second problem\" without prior definition adds to the lack of coherence. While Speaker A eventually addresses the \"exchange merchandise\" part, the initial statement about responsibility for loss creates a major flaw in logical consistency and topic coherence regarding who is accountable for what.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There is one brief overlap between [00:07 - 00:08] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap, which falls under the category of \"brief overlaps\" that are acceptable and natural in conversation. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected between speaker turns that would hinder the flow of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--35380",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:09] Speaker A: Hi, Mom. I'm feeling really lousy today. I've got a cold and now I feel all achy too. My throat hurts and I have a slight fever,\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B: Oh no, sweetheart! Have you been drinking enough fluids? Staying hydrated is really important when you're sick.\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker A: I think I've been drinking enough, but I can't stop sneezing! Do you think I could take some ibuprofen for my headache and achy muscles?\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B: Yes, that's a good idea. Let me go get that for you.\n[00:26 - 00:27] Speaker A: Thanks, Mom.\n[00:28 - 00:30] Speaker B: You're welcome, dear. I'll be right back.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates the conversation by describing their symptoms and feeling unwell. Speaker B responds with relevant concern and a common, logical first piece of advice for someone who is sick (staying hydrated). Speaker A then acknowledges this advice and continues to describe another symptom, directly leading to a question about medication, which is a logical progression when discussing illness. Speaker B's affirmative response and offer to retrieve the medication are direct, relevant, and helpful. The concluding exchange of thanks and acknowledgment (\"You're welcome\") are appropriate and naturally close the interaction. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or illogical jumps in conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the pauses observed are all brief (around 1 second), which is natural and common in conversation. There is a brief overlap between [00:08 - 00:09] where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap, which falls under the category of \"brief overlaps\" that are explicitly stated as acceptable. It doesn't disrupt the flow or indicate a communication breakdown; rather, it suggests immediate concern and natural turn-taking. There are no \"extended overlaps\" or \"prolonged pauses\" that would be detrimental to the conversation's fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--419",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Let's meet before next week's meeting, Jane. I want to kick around some ideas with the team\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but do you have any specific topics in mind that we should prepare for?\n[00:09 - 00:21] Speaker A: Yes, I want to focus on our new marketing strategy and also discuss the budget allocations. But I haven't mentioned the timing yet—how does next Monday afternoon, around three, sound?\n[00:21 - 00:23] Speaker B: That works for me. I'll put you in my book.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate excellent logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial interjection (\"Sorry to jump in, but do you have any specific topics in mind that we should prepare for?\") is a highly relevant clarification question, immediately following Speaker A's proposal for a meeting. It logically seeks more information to make the meeting productive.\n- Speaker A's subsequent response (\"Yes, I want to focus on our new marketing strategy and also discuss the budget allocations. But I haven't mentioned the timing yet—how does next Monday afternoon, around three, sound?\") directly answers Speaker B's question and then, in a very coherent and proactive manner, addresses the next logical step in scheduling a meeting: proposing a time.\n- Speaker B's final response (\"That works for me. I'll put you in my book.\") directly confirms the proposed time, showing logical agreement and commitment.\nThe conversation flows naturally from proposing a meeting to clarifying its content and then setting a time. All turns build on the previous ones effectively, maintaining a clear and consistent topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very high.\n- There is one brief overlap detected between [00:04 - 00:09] where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing [00:00 - 00:05]. This overlap lasts for about 1 second (from 0:04 to 0:05). However, Speaker B explicitly states, \"Sorry to jump in,\" which indicates awareness and politeness in interjecting. This is a common and acceptable conversational phenomenon, especially when seeking clarification, and is not a prolonged or harmful overlap. It actually contributes to the natural, engaged feel of the conversation.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are immediate or very quick, indicating a smooth and uninterrupted flow of conversation. For example, Speaker B starts at 0:09 as Speaker A finishes at 0:09, and Speaker B starts at 0:21 as Speaker A finishes at 0:21.\nThe dialogue feels natural, responsive, and efficient.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--690",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I really want a dog, but my lease says I can't have one.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: If you get a dog, do you want to get a big one or a small one?\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker A: Big. I really love corgis.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: That sounds like a lot of work.\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker A: It is work, but the corgis are so adorable and\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but have you thought about discussing this with your landlord? Maybe you could negotiate something.\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker A: I haven't tried that yet. But back to corgis, they are so cute! There are definitely corgis I think are cute.\n[00:28 - 00:30] Speaker B: What do you think of this one? He's called Buddy.\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker A: I don't know that name. Do you want to name him something else,\n[00:34 - 00:37] Speaker B: Actually, I was just curious if you had any names in mind already. Do you?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with Speaker A expressing a desire for a dog despite a lease restriction. Speaker B initially shifts the focus to the *type* of dog, which is relevant to A's desire but sidesteps the immediate problem. Speaker A engages with this by specifying Corgis. Speaker B's interjection at [00:14 - 00:20] about discussing with the landlord is highly relevant and a very good suggestion, directly addressing the core issue Speaker A raised at the beginning. However, Speaker A acknowledges this but immediately shifts back to Corgis (\"But back to corgis...\"), not fully engaging with the practical solution offered. Speaker B then introduces an arbitrary name (\"Buddy\") and asks about it, which seems out of context to the general discussion about Corgis or the lease problem. Speaker A's confusion (\"I don't know that name. Do you want to name him something else?\") highlights this lack of logical consistency. Speaker B then clarifies their intent, but the introduction of \"Buddy\" felt like a non-sequitur initially. While many turns are relevant, the shift back to Corgis by A after B's helpful suggestion, and then B's introduction of \"Buddy\" without clear context, detract from the overall logical consistency and topic coherence. There's a slight struggle to maintain a single coherent thread towards the end.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue contains one extended overlap:\n- [00:14 - 00:20] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A (\"Sorry to jump in, but...\"). This is acknowledged by Speaker B and is a natural interruption to offer a pertinent suggestion. It's not a prolonged or disruptive overlap that hinders understanding, but rather a turn-taking mechanism.\nThere are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The turns are relatively quick, with the longest gap being 1 second ([00:06 - 00:07] and [00:27 - 00:28]), which is perfectly acceptable and natural. The overall pacing of the conversation seems natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--351",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Excuse me, Miss.\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: What can I do for you?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: I've just heard an announcement that my flight has been delayed.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker B: What's your flight number?\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker A: Flight CA216 to Chengdu.\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker B: Yes, it's true. It has been delayed.\n[00:14 - 00:15] Speaker A: Could you please tell me why?\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B: Yes, of course. The delay is due to heavy rain affecting\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I'm really concerned about the timing. Do you have any idea how long the delay might be?\n[00:26 - 00:36] Speaker B: I am sorry, we don't know the extent of the delay at present. But according to the latest weather forecast, there will be a change in weather soon. I was about to mention that the delay is due to heavy rain, which is causing the issue.\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker A: Oh, I see. We have to wait. Well, is it possible for the rain to stop before noon?\n[00:42 - 00:48] Speaker B: It's hard to say. Weather is so changeable in the summer. Please listen to the latest announcement about your flight.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker A initiates with a problem (flight delay), Speaker B asks for necessary information (flight number), confirms, and then attempts to explain the reason. Speaker A's interruption at [00:18] is immediately followed by an apology and a relevant, urgent question about timing, which Speaker B addresses directly before seamlessly resuming their interrupted explanation. The conversation flows naturally from problem identification to explanation, concern, and further clarification.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The entire dialogue remains tightly focused on the flight delay, its cause (heavy rain), and the potential duration. There are no tangents or irrelevant remarks. Speaker B's ability to pick up their previous explanation after being interrupted (\"I was about to mention that the delay is due to heavy rain...\") further highlights strong topic coherence and adaptability.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is largely natural and appropriate.\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There is one instance of overlap at `[00:18 - 00:19]` where Speaker A begins their turn before Speaker B finishes theirs. Speaker A starts speaking at 0:18 while Speaker B finishes at 0:19. This is a 1-second overlap. While it is an interruption, Speaker A immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\") and provides a clear, urgent reason for doing so. This indicates a natural conversational dynamic rather than a disruptive or unmanaged overlap. Crucially, it is not \"extended\" as per the scoring criteria (typically meaning multiple seconds or significant portions of turns being spoken over). Speaker B handles it well by addressing A's concern and then circling back to complete their original point.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. Most pauses are brief (around 1 second), which is natural and indicates smooth turn-taking without awkward silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--50",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: OK, that's a cut. Let's start from the beginning everyone.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: What was the problem that time?\n[00:06 - 00:19] Speaker A: The feeling was all wrong, Mike. She is telling you that she doesn't want to see you anymore, but I want to get more anger from you. You're acting hurt and sad, but that's not how your character would act in this situation. He\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker B: But Jason and Laura had been together for 3 years. Don't you think his reaction would be one of both anger and sadness?\n[00:25 - 00:32] Speaker A: At this point, no. I think he would react the way most guys would and then later on, we would see his real thoughts and\n[00:32 - 00:39] Speaker B: Sorry, just to clarify, do you mean we should focus more on his immediate, perhaps more primal reaction, and save the mixed emotions for a later scene?\n[00:40 - 00:47] Speaker A: Exactly, that's what I was getting at. The mixed emotions can come later, but in this moment, I need raw anger.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate high relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's questions (e.g., \"What was the problem that time?\", \"Don't you think his reaction would be one of both anger and sadness?\") are direct and pertinent to Speaker A's feedback as a director. Speaker A, in turn, provides clear, detailed explanations and justifications for their directorial choices, directly addressing Speaker B's inquiries and interpretations. The dialogue flows naturally from initial feedback to actor's questioning, director's elaboration, and the actor's clarification, culminating in mutual understanding. The topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on the character's emotional portrayal in a specific scene. There are no instances of irrelevant responses or deviations from the central discussion.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between turns; the transitions are smooth and natural, often with less than a second's gap or immediate follow-up. Brief overlaps are present at [00:18-00:19] (1 second) and [00:32] (instantaneous or very brief), which are typical in natural conversation and do not impede understanding or indicate a disruption. These brief overlaps suggest active listening and a dynamic exchange rather than awkward interruptions. Overall, the pacing of the conversation is very natural and efficient, reflecting a productive and engaged discussion between a director and an actor.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--303",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm going to prescribe some antibiotics, and some cream to ease the itching and reduce the\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but will these antibiotics have any side effects I should be aware of?\n[00:08 - 00:20] Speaker A: The antibiotics are generally well-tolerated, but you might experience mild side effects like nausea or diarrhea. I was also going to mention that the cream will help with the burning sensation and should\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker B: Oh, that's good to know. By the way, where should I buy them?\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker A: The pharmacy will give you a discount since you came to the clinic.\n[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker B: Great. What floor is the pharmacy on?\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker A: The fourth. I'll send the prescription down there, so you can just pick it up on your way out.\n[00:35 - 00:35] Speaker B: Thank you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** Each turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B's initial interruption to ask about side effects is a highly relevant and common concern when medication is being prescribed. Speaker A addresses this directly before seamlessly returning to the original explanation about the cream. Subsequent questions from Speaker B regarding where to buy the medication and the pharmacy's location are direct and logical follow-ups to Speaker A's information.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The conversation maintains clear topic coherence throughout, flowing naturally from medication details to practical information about obtaining it. Speaker A effectively manages the topic shift initiated by Speaker B's question and brings it back to the original subject before moving on. The entire conversation revolves around the prescription process, demonstrating strong coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** The transcript notes \"Sorry to interrupt\" at [00:04], indicating a brief overlap occurred. However, this is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B, making it a natural and polite part of the interaction rather than a disruptive or extended overlap. The evaluation criteria state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this fits that description. There are no other indications of prolonged or problematic overlapping turns.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The pauses are minimal (e.g., 1 second between [00:22] and [00:23], and between [00:34] and [00:35]), which are natural and acceptable in conversational flow, indicating smooth turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--93360",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey Alex, how are you doing?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Not too bad. How about you? You look a little tired or\n[00:05 - 00:16] Speaker A: Tired? Yeah, I'm feeling a bit exhausted today. I'm testing out a new drug that's supposed to help with that. So far, it seems to be working. I feel more alert after taking it.\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker B: That's good to hear. I'm always curious about new drugs and how they work. What's this one called?\n[00:21 - 00:23] Speaker A: It's called Modafinil.\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B: Modafinil? That sounds like something out\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker A: A made-up word? Yeah, it is kind of a funny name. But it seems to be doing the trick so far.\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker B: Well, I'm glad it's helping you out. Let me know if you need any help testing it further.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn is a direct and logical continuation of the preceding turn. Speaker B's initial observation about Speaker A's tiredness naturally leads to Speaker A's explanation and introduction of the new drug. Speaker B's curiosity and subsequent questions about the drug are highly relevant. Speaker A's answers are precise and directly address the questions or comments. The conversation maintains a clear topic coherence throughout, focusing on Speaker A's well-being and the new drug. There are no irrelevant remarks or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is also excellent.\n- **Pauses:** There are no prolonged pauses between turns. The short pauses, such as the 1-second pause between [00:02] and [00:03], are natural and contribute to the conversational flow rather than disrupting it.\n- **Overlaps:** Two brief overlaps are present:\n    - At [00:05], Speaker B says \"tired or\" while Speaker A begins \"Tired? Yeah\". This is a very short, natural overlap where Speaker A picks up on Speaker B's observation immediately.\n    - At [00:25], Speaker B says \"something out\" while Speaker A begins \"A made-up word?\". This also appears to be a natural instance of one speaker anticipating or completing the other's thought, characteristic of highly fluent and engaged conversation.\nNeither overlap is extended or prolonged; they are brief and seamless, enhancing the naturalness of the interaction rather than detracting from it.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--588",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I bet you can't tell me something interesting about Queen Victoria.\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Queen Victoria was queen of England for 66 years!\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: That is really interesting! What else can you tell me about her?\n[00:11 - 00:21] Speaker B: Her husband, Prince Albert, was first in line to the throne before she became queen. He was born in Saxe Coburg, but her father was from Leiningen in Germany, which\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker A: Wait, are you saying Prince Albert was actually in line for the throne? I thought he was just a consort.\n[00:27 - 00:39] Speaker B: No, he was not in line for the throne. I misspoke. Prince Albert was indeed her consort, and he was born in Saxe Coburg. However, her father was from Leiningen in Germany. So, what about you? What do you like to talk about with people?\n[00:40 - 00:47] Speaker A: I'm not too sure. My conversation topics tend to change. I guess I can talk about sports and movies.\n[00:47 - 00:49] Speaker B: Movies are a great way to spend an evening!\n[00:50 - 00:54] Speaker A: I've been watching the television series Chernobyl. It's incredibly gripping\n[00:53 - 00:57] Speaker B: Oh, Chernobyl! I've heard so much about it. Is it historically accurate?\n[00:57 - 01:04] Speaker A: Yes, it's very good! It does a great job of depicting the events. You should definitely check it out.\n[01:04 - 01:07] Speaker B: Thanks! Well, I hope you have a nice evening!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n- **Logical Consistency:** The dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency. Speaker B initially makes a factual error about Prince Albert's lineage (0:11-0:21). Speaker A promptly identifies this inconsistency and asks for clarification (0:20-0:27). Speaker B then immediately self-corrects its statement, admitting it \"misspoke\" (0:27-0:39), which shows excellent logical consistency and responsiveness to correction.\n- **Topic Coherence:** The conversation starts on Queen Victoria and then smoothly transitions through Speaker B's error and correction. The subsequent shift from Queen Victoria to \"what do you like to talk about with people?\" (0:39) is initiated by Speaker B and, while a change, it's a common conversational pivot. Speaker A takes it well (0:40-0:47), and the conversation then coherently develops around movies and the TV series Chernobyl. The follow-up questions and comments about Chernobyl are highly coherent with the introduced topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n- **Extended Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps detected:\n    - [00:20 - 00:21] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B. Speaker B is mid-sentence (\"which\") and Speaker A interjects with a challenge/clarification (\"Wait, are you saying...\"). This is a very brief (1-second) and functionally appropriate overlap, signaling active listening and an immediate need for clarification. It enhances the naturalness of the dialogue rather than disrupting it.\n    - [00:53 - 00:54] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A. Speaker A is finishing a sentence (\"It's incredibly gripping\") and Speaker B interjects with an enthusiastic \"Oh, Chernobyl!\" and a question. This is also a very brief (1-second) and natural overlap, indicating engagement and eagerness to respond.\n    Both overlaps are short, purposeful, and do not hinder the flow of information or understanding. They contribute to the dynamic and natural feel of the conversation.\n- **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses observed between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and responsive, indicating a smooth and natural conversational pace.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--457",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Wow, there are so many lanterns to appreciate. Now, I can see why it's called the Lantern Festival. It deserves its reputation for\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but I just noticed something—what are those people doing over there? They seem to be gathering around something.\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker A: Oh, right! That's probably because of the characters on the lanterns. Did you notice them?\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: Sure. But you know that I can't read any Chinese characters. What do they say?\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker A: They are puzzles. It's a tradition to solve the puzzles on the lanterns during the Lantern Festival.\n[00:31 - 00:38] Speaker B: Very interesting. But I'm afraid we'd better do something else. Hey, look! There is a huge lantern there. Let's get close to it.\n[00:39 - 00:44] Speaker A: It's really eye-catching. It's the biggest dragon lantern I've ever seen in all my life.\n[00:45 - 00:49] Speaker B: Really? Then I'm really lucky. Oh, it's spewing fireworks from its huge mouth.\n[00:50 - 00:54] Speaker A: Very impressive. It's made of glass which makes it even brighter.\n[00:54 - 00:59] Speaker B: There are many Chinese characters on its body, too. What are they about? Puzzles?\n[01:00 - 01:16] Speaker A: Let me have a look. Oh, no. They are Chinese poems which describe this happy scene. By the way, earlier when I was mentioning the characters on the lanterns, I was going to say that people gather around to solve the puzzles together. It's a fun part of the festival!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate excellent relevance and logical consistency. Speakers directly address each other's points, whether it's answering a question about lantern characters (Speaker A explaining puzzles to Speaker B), or engaging with a new observation (Speaker A following Speaker B's lead to look at the huge lantern). There are natural topic shifts, like Speaker B's redirection to the \"huge lantern,\" which is a common and acceptable occurrence in dynamic conversations, especially when observing things in an environment like a festival. Most notably, Speaker A's final turn (01:00 - 01:16) showcases exceptional coherence and conversational memory. Speaker A not only answers Speaker B's current question but also circles back to complete a thought that was interrupted earlier in the conversation (\"By the way, earlier when I was mentioning the characters on the lanterns, I was going to say that people gather around to solve the puzzles together. It's a fun part of the festival!\"). This shows a high degree of attentiveness and a desire to fully communicate, which significantly enhances the logical flow and quality of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There is one brief overlap identified: `[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but I just noticed something—what are those people doing over there? They seem to be gathering around something.` The overlap with Speaker A's previous turn is minimal (`[00:07 - 00:08]`), lasting only 1 second. Crucially, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges the interruption with \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating awareness and politeness. This is a natural and acceptable brief overlap, not a prolonged or disruptive one. No other extended overlaps are present. Similarly, there are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are smooth and prompt (e.g., 00:13 to 00:14, 00:24 to 00:25, 00:30 to 00:31, etc., all indicating 0-1 second pauses), reflecting a natural and engaging conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--484",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I've been listening to a lot of classic rock lately. I really love Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin.\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B: Led Zeppelin is pretty great, but I really like Pink Floyd too! I think it's super cool that Roger Waters still tours with the band.\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: Do you know of any other bands I might enjoy that\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but have you ever listened to The Rolling Stones? They have a lot of great tracks that you might enjoy.\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker A: Well, my favorite band is My Chemical Romance.\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker B: I'm sorry, but I really don't like their music. I don't really know how to describe it, but I find it extremely boring.\n[00:32 - 00:36] Speaker A: Oh that's okay. Do you like The Who? I've\n[00:36 - 00:39] Speaker B: The Beatles? I mean, they're okay, but I really prefer Bob Dylan.\n[00:40 - 00:46] Speaker A: Oh okay, yeah he's really good. I listen to a lot of The Beatles when I'm writing songs.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue generally maintains topic coherence regarding music preferences, but there are notable issues.\n- At [00:22 - 00:25], Speaker A introduces \"My Chemical Romance\" as their favorite band, which feels like an abrupt topic shift, especially after A had just asked for classic rock recommendations and B provided one. While it's a personal preference, it breaks the established flow of finding similar artists.\n- A more significant issue occurs at [00:36 - 00:39]. Speaker A asks, \"Do you like The Who?\". Speaker B responds with \"The Beatles?\". This indicates a clear mishearing or misunderstanding, leading to a breakdown in logical consistency. Speaker B then proceeds to comment on The Beatles and Bob Dylan, completely ignoring Speaker A's question about The Who. This is a significant lapse in responsiveness and topic coherence, as it forces Speaker A to adapt to B's mistaken premise rather than the conversation continuing naturally.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe dialogue exhibits issues with overlapping turns and turn-taking, which impact its naturalness.\n- At [00:15 - 00:22], Speaker B explicitly interrupts Speaker A (\"Sorry to interrupt...\"). This is an instance of an overlapping turn (Speaker A's turn [00:13 - 00:16] is cut off by B starting at 00:15), which the criteria state is harmful if prolonged. While brief (1 second overlap), the fact that B acknowledges it indicates it was noticeable and disruptive. Speaker A's sentence is left incomplete.\n- At [00:36 - 00:39], Speaker B starts speaking precisely as Speaker A's turn [00:32 - 00:36] ends. Speaker A's sentence (\"I've\") is again left incomplete, suggesting an immediate and perhaps abrupt turn-take or a slight cut-off. This contributes to a less natural, somewhat rushed conversational flow.\nThere are no long pauses observed.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--417",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: May I take your order now?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yes, I'll have a boiled egg with toast and orange juice, please.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: How would you like your eggs?\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker B: Hard-boiled, please.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker A: And your toast, light or [interrupt]\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: Sorry, just to clarify, the orange juice—do you have fresh-squeezed available?\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker A: Yes, we do have fresh-squeezed orange juice. Now, would you like your toast light or dark?\n[00:20 - 00:21] Speaker B: Dark, please.\n[00:21 - 00:22] Speaker A: Now or later?\n[00:23 - 00:24] Speaker B: Later will do.\n[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker A: Will there be anything else?\n[00:26 - 00:28] Speaker B: No, that's all. Thanks.\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker A: One hard-boiled egg with toast and orange juice to follow.\n[00:32 - 00:33] Speaker B: That's right.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate excellent logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A consistently asks relevant follow-up questions to clarify the order, such as \"How would you like your eggs?\" and \"And your toast, light or dark?\". Speaker B provides direct and clear answers to these questions.\n\nEven when Speaker B interrupts to clarify about the orange juice (\"Sorry, just to clarify, the orange juice—do you have fresh-squeezed available?\"), this is a relevant question within the context of placing an order. Speaker A handles this interruption seamlessly by first answering the clarification question and then returning to the previously interrupted topic (\"Now, would you like your toast light or dark?\"). This shows strong topic management and logical flow.\n\nThe question \"Now or later?\" from Speaker A, while brief, is a common and logical question in a service setting regarding when an item or the entire order should be served, and Speaker B's response \"Later will do\" is perfectly consistent. The final confirmation and acceptance of the order also maintain coherence. There are no instances of illogical responses or significant topic shifts that are not managed appropriately.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n\nThere is one instance of an overlap:\n*   Speaker A starts saying \"And your toast, light or [interrupt]\" at [00:09], and Speaker B starts speaking at [00:10], leading to a brief overlap until Speaker A is fully interrupted at [00:11]. This overlap lasts approximately 1 second.\n*   This is a brief overlap and is immediately followed by Speaker B explicitly saying \"Sorry, just to clarify,\" which acknowledges the interruption and makes it natural and acceptable rather than harmful or disruptive. It's a common feature of natural conversation where a speaker might interject for clarification.\n\nRegarding pauses:\n*   The pauses between turns are consistently short (mostly 1 second or less), for example, between [00:01]-[00:02], [00:04]-[00:05], [00:08]-[00:09], and [00:22]-[00:23].\n*   There are no extended or prolonged pauses that disrupt the flow of the conversation. The dialogue progresses smoothly and naturally, resembling a real-life interaction where an order is being taken.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--197",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Ah, it's almost summer vacation time. I can't wait to take a break from studying. How about we plan\n[00:05 - 00:15] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but I was just thinking—aren't you worried about falling behind? I'm planning to take a business class over the summer and work part-time at my uncle's company to get some experience.\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker A: Oh, I hadn't thought about that. But why don't you just relax?\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker B: I really want to be successful in the future. By the way, what were you going to say earlier about your summer plans?\n[00:27 - 00:35] Speaker A: I was just going to say I'm excited to take a break, but now you've got me thinking about my future too. Maybe I should reconsider.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A introduces the topic of summer vacation, and Speaker B immediately responds with a relevant, contrasting perspective on productivity during summer, even acknowledging their interruption. Speaker A's subsequent responses show that they are actively listening and considering Speaker B's points, moving from a desire for relaxation to contemplating future plans. Speaker B also maintains topic coherence by bringing the conversation back to A's original statement after expressing their own views. The progression of the dialogue is logical, showing Speaker A being influenced by Speaker B's ideas, which is a natural conversational flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue has one extended overlap and one long pause that impact interactional fluency.\n\n**Extended Overlap:**\n- **[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A**\n- **[00:05 - 00:15] Speaker B**\nThis overlap lasts for approximately 1 second (from 00:05 to 00:06), which is relatively brief. However, Speaker B's turn is quite long and starts while Speaker A is still speaking. Speaker B explicitly says, \"Sorry to jump in,\" indicating an awareness of interrupting, which somewhat mitigates the negative impact. While an overlap, it's not excessively prolonged or disruptive to the point of making the conversation unnatural or hard to follow, as Speaker B's interjection is clearly framed as such.\n\n**Long Pause:**\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The turns are relatively quick and responsive.\n\nConsidering the \"Note: Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful,\" the 1-second overlap where one speaker is consciously \"jumping in\" is on the edge of \"brief.\" It's not a \"prolonged\" overlap, but it's not a \"brief\" one either in terms of the duration of the overlap itself, though the *reason* for the overlap (B jumping in) is clear. It causes a slight dip in fluency but doesn't severely hinder comprehension or naturalness.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--602",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: So, how have your gardening projects been going?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: They're going fine! I'm growing tomatoes this summer.\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker A: Cool! Are you growing any peppers too?\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Not this summer. I had to give up some of my garden for the new housing development that went up recently,\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker A: Oh, that's tough. Have you considered using vertical gardening techniques to maximize space?\n[00:19 - 00:30] Speaker B: That's a good idea. I might try that next season. I was saying, the new housing development took up some of my garden space. That's really unfortunate. I'm growing some tomatoes too. We should swap tomato recipes sometime.\n[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker A: That sounds great. How's your garden growing?\n[00:34 - 00:40] Speaker B: It's been a bit challenging with the reduced space, but I'm managing. What varieties of tomatoes are you growing?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's initial questions guide the conversation, and Speaker B provides direct answers while offering additional context (e.g., the housing development impacting garden space). Speaker A's suggestion of vertical gardening is highly relevant and empathetic to Speaker B's stated challenge. While Speaker B briefly reiterates the point about the housing development (0:19-0:25), it's quickly followed by a new, relevant suggestion (swapping tomato recipes). Speaker A responds positively to this. Speaker A's question \"How's your garden growing?\" at 0:31 might seem slightly redundant given B's previous statements about reduced space, but it's still on topic and elicits a coherent response from B. Overall, the conversation stays on topic, and turns build logically upon each other.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the pauses observed are brief and natural, typical of real conversation (e.g., 1-second gaps between turns). There is a very brief overlap detected at [00:13 - 00:14], where Speaker A starts speaking just as Speaker B is finishing their sentence. This is a common and natural occurrence in fluid conversation, indicating engagement rather than a disruptive interruption or extended overlap. It does not hinder the flow or understanding of the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--129969",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:16] Speaker A: Father, I have sinned. I have done some terrible things in my life and I want to make things right. I have been attending church regularly and confession, and volunteering my time to help with the church's youth group. But I feel like there is still something more I\n[00:15 - 00:32] Speaker B: Rony, it sounds like you are doing everything you can to make up for your past mistakes. And that is commendable. But you need to also forgive yourself. You cannot keep living in guilt and shame. You must learn to let go of the past and move on with your life. Otherwise, you will never be able to truly find peace and live the\n[00:31 - 00:46] Speaker A: I understand, Father, but how do I really let go? I mean, I know God has forgiven me, but I still feel this weight, like I need to do more to prove I've changed. Maybe I need to find a way to make amends directly with those I've hurt.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance.\n- Speaker B's response to Speaker A's initial confession and feeling of \"still something more\" is highly relevant, advising self-forgiveness and letting go of guilt, which directly addresses Speaker A's emotional state and search for peace.\n- Speaker A's follow-up question (\"how do I really let go?\") and continued expression of feeling a \"weight\" despite God's forgiveness show a clear understanding of Speaker B's previous advice and a struggle to implement it.\n- Speaker A's suggestion of \"making amends directly with those I've hurt\" is a logical continuation of the theme of seeking to \"make things right\" and feeling the need to \"do more,\" directly building on the previous turns.\nThe conversation maintains strong logical consistency and topic coherence throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n- There are brief overlaps detected (e.g., Speaker B starting at 00:15 while Speaker A ends at 00:16, and Speaker A starting at 00:31 while Speaker B ends at 00:32). These are 1-second overlaps. As per the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" These brief overlaps do not disrupt the flow or understanding of the conversation; they rather indicate natural, perhaps slightly eager, turn-taking. There are no extended or prolonged overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--239",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey there, you look a little lost. Are you new here?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yeah how'd you know?\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: You can always spot the newbies. I can give you a few pointers if you want. Were you trying to use this machine for your\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: Actually, yes! I just started my training today and I'm not really sure where to begin.\n[00:17 - 00:28] Speaker A: It's ok, I know how it is. This machine here will work out your upper body, mainly your triceps and biceps. Are you looking to develop strength or muscle tone and build some\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker B: Well, I don't want to be ripped like you! I just want a good physique with weights and cardio.\n[00:33 - 00:53] Speaker A: In that case you want to work with less weight. You can start off by working ten to fifteen reps in four sets. Five kilo weights should be enough. Now it's very important that you stretch before pumping iron or you might pull a muscle. Also, I was going to say that this machine helps with muscle definition too, which seems like what you're aiming for.\n[00:54 - 00:58] Speaker B: Got it! Wow is that the weight you are lifting? My goodness that's a lot of weight!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement.\n- Speaker A initiates by noticing Speaker B seems \"lost\" and new, which Speaker B confirms.\n- Speaker A then offers \"pointers,\" and Speaker B immediately clarifies their need (\"just started my training... not really sure where to begin\").\n- Speaker A smoothly transitions to explaining the machine and asking about Speaker B's goals. Speaker B provides a clear, concise answer about their desired physique.\n- Speaker A then offers detailed, relevant advice tailored to Speaker B's goals (less weight, reps, sets, stretching, muscle definition) which directly follows from B's previous statement.\n- Finally, Speaker B acknowledges the advice (\"Got it!\") and then makes a natural, related observation about Speaker A's own weights, which shows engagement and continues the interaction coherently.\nThe topic evolves naturally and logically, demonstrating excellent topic coherence throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural and steady flow of conversation.\nThere are two instances of brief overlaps:\n- At [00:11], Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence \"Were you trying to use this machine for your\".\n- At [00:28], Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence \"Are you looking to develop strength or muscle tone and build some\".\nThese overlaps are brief and appear to be anticipatory or enthusiastic interruptions, rather than prolonged, disruptive overlapping turns. Speaker A's sentences are cut short, but the meaning is clear from the context, and Speaker B's response immediately follows the implied question. According to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these instances fall into the \"brief overlaps\" category. They do not significantly impede the understanding or flow of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--255",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Did you need help with something?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: I don't know where to get my ballot.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: I can help you with finding the\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Wait, before we go on—are there any specific documents I need to show to get my ballot?\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: Yes, you'll need to show your ID. I was just about to ask for that.\n[00:14 - 00:15] Speaker B: Here it is.\n[00:15 - 00:17] Speaker A: All right, here is your ballot card.\n[00:18 - 00:19] Speaker B: What do I do now?\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker A: Go to a voting booth and vote.\n[00:22 - 00:23] Speaker B: All right. Thanks for your help.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial query is directly addressed by Speaker A. Speaker B's follow-up question about documents, though an interruption, is highly relevant to the immediate task of getting a ballot, showing proactive information gathering. Speaker A's response to this is accurate and logical. The conversation then proceeds step-by-step, with each speaker's turn being a direct and appropriate response to the previous one, leading to the successful completion of the task (getting the ballot and knowing the next step). The topic coherence is maintained throughout, focusing on the process of voting.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction displays good fluency. There is one overlap:\n- `[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: I can help you with finding the`\n- `[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Wait, before we go on—are there any specific documents I need to show to get my ballot?`\nThis overlap is brief (1 second) and functional. Speaker B interrupts Speaker A to ask a clarifying question that is pertinent before Speaker A continues with their original offer of help. This type of brief, purposeful interruption is a common and natural aspect of real-world conversation and does not hinder the flow or understanding. There are no extended pauses indicated by the timestamps; the turn-taking appears smooth and timely.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--96",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Thank you, Steven. That was the most magnificent meal I've had abroad. You'll have to let me reciprocate the next time you're in Beijing.\n[00:07 - 00:21] Speaker B: Don't worry about it, Lin. That's no big deal. You know, Americans appreciate China's rich culinary culture. Just excuse me for a second while I check the number here and figure out how much to give the waiter. Hmm, by the way, what do you do about tipping in restaurants in\n[00:21 - 00:23] Speaker A: Oh, tipping! We don't usually tip in China.\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: No tipping? Now that's what I call a civilized system.\n[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker A: At hotels and some restaurants they add a service charge to the bill, but other than that, tipping isn't customary.\n[00:35 - 00:37] Speaker B: What about cab drivers and other service\n[00:36 - 00:49] Speaker A: Oh, right! Cab drivers and porters. In a cab, you just pay what it says on the meter. I generally tip hotel porters 10 yuan per bag, but in first-class hotels, they're instructed not to accept gratuities.\n[00:50 - 00:53] Speaker B: You'd have a revolution on your hands if you tried to introduce that sort of system here.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate high logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A's initial thanks and offer to reciprocate are well-received by Speaker B, who then smoothly transitions to a practical matter (paying the bill) and introduces the topic of tipping. Speaker A's answers about tipping are direct and informative, and Speaker B's reactions and follow-up questions (e.g., \"No tipping? Now that's what I call a civilized system,\" and \"What about cab drivers and other service\") are perfectly relevant and contribute to the natural progression of the conversation. Speaker A's detailed explanations about hotels, service charges, cab drivers, and porters are clear and address Speaker B's queries comprehensively. The conversation maintains a clear focus on cultural differences regarding tipping, with each turn building logically on the previous one. There are no instances of irrelevant or off-topic remarks.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the conversation moves at a natural and engaging pace, indicating active listening and quick responses from both participants. There is one minor overlap between [00:35 - 00:37] Speaker B and [00:36 - 00:49] Speaker A, where Speaker B asks \"What about cab drivers and other service\" and Speaker A begins \"Oh, right! Cab drivers and porters.\" This is a very brief, natural overlap, common in spontaneous conversation, where Speaker A anticipates or quickly picks up on the incomplete question. It is not an extended or disruptive overlap, fitting the \"brief overlaps... are acceptable\" criterion. Overall, the flow is smooth and uninterrupted by any fluency issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--16308",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Sarah, I feel really awkward right now. Everyone is looking at me and I feel like I'm the only one who feels uncomfortable in\n[00:07 - 00:21] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but I just want to say, you're definitely not alone in feeling this way. I feel a bit awkward too. But we're just in a room full of people, and honestly, nobody is judging you or looking at you in a weird way. Just relax and try to enjoy yourself.\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker A: Yeah, you're right. Thanks, Sarah. Just talking to you makes me feel better.\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker B: Of course, Zaniah. That's what I'm here for—to support\n[00:29 - 00:31] Speaker A: I really appreciate it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance.\n*   **Speaker A's initial turn** sets the context by expressing discomfort and vulnerability.\n*   **Speaker B's immediate response** directly addresses Speaker A's feelings by validating them (\"you're definitely not alone,\" \"I feel a bit awkward too\") and offering reassurance and practical advice (\"nobody is judging you,\" \"Just relax and try to enjoy yourself\"). This is a perfectly relevant and supportive intervention.\n*   **Speaker A's subsequent turn** clearly shows the positive impact of Speaker B's words (\"you're right,\" \"Thanks, Sarah,\" \"Just talking to you makes me feel better\"). This demonstrates a logical progression and acknowledgment of the previous turn.\n*   **Speaker B's final turn** responds directly to Speaker A's gratitude and reinforces their supportive role, maintaining the positive and helpful tone.\n*   **Speaker A's concluding turn** offers a final expression of appreciation.\n\nThe topic remains consistent throughout, focusing on Speaker A's initial discomfort and Speaker B's efforts to alleviate it. Each turn builds logically on the previous one, showing a clear cause-and-effect relationship in the conversation's progression.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits high interactional fluency.\n*   **Overlaps:**\n    *   There is a brief overlap between Speaker A (ends at 00:08) and Speaker B (starts at 00:07). This 1-second overlap is very natural, suggesting Speaker B's eagerness to offer support and reassurance.\n    *   There is another brief overlap between Speaker B (ends at 00:30) and Speaker A (starts at 00:29). This 1-second overlap is also natural, indicating Speaker A's quickness to express appreciation.\n    These are not \"extended overlaps\" but rather common occurrences in natural, engaged conversation, particularly in supportive contexts where participants are actively listening and responding.\n*   **Pauses:**\n    *   There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn (ends 00:21) and Speaker A's turn (starts 00:22). This is a very brief and acceptable pause, allowing for natural turn-taking.\n    *   There are no \"long pauses\" detected.\n\nOverall, the conversation flows very smoothly with appropriate turn-taking and natural, brief overlaps that enhance the sense of genuine interaction rather than detracting from it.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--408",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: How is night life in Beijing?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Very interesting!\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: What do you suggest then?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: How about going to dance? There is a very good nightclub that has\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: Oh, before we decide, do you know if there's a cover charge or any dress code for the nightclub?\n[00:14 - 00:22] Speaker B: Yes, there's a small cover charge, but the atmosphere is worth it. And as for the dress code, it's pretty casual. The nightclub is nearby.\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker A: That's a great idea. Let's go... Oh, the dance hall looks very nice and the music is wonderful.\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker B: I'm glad you like it. The band is called 'Four and One'. They are especially good at playing rock and some jazz\n[00:34 - 00:38] Speaker A: Wait, I didn't catch the name of the band. Could you repeat that?\n[00:38 - 00:44] Speaker B: Sure, they're called 'Four and One'. They play a mix of genres, but they're especially good at rock and roll.\n[00:45 - 00:48] Speaker A: That's great! I love to dance to fast music.\n[00:48 - 00:51] Speaker B: Then you must be interested in disco dancing, aren't you?\n[00:51 - 00:56] Speaker A: Yes, disco dancing is my favorite. It's great fun and good exercise as well.\n[00:57 - 00:58] Speaker B: OK. Let's disco.\n[00:59 - 01:01] Speaker A: Now the band is playing a slow dance.\n[01:02 - 01:04] Speaker B: That's a waltz. Would you like to try it?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency.\n*   Speaker B's initial response about Beijing nightlife is direct and concise.\n*   The subsequent suggestions and information provided by Speaker B (about the nightclub, cover charge, dress code, band name, and music genres) directly address Speaker A's questions and follow-up inquiries.\n*   Speaker A's comments and questions are always relevant to the current topic, whether asking for clarification, expressing preferences, or making observations about the environment (e.g., \"the dance hall looks very nice,\" \"the band is playing a slow dance\").\n*   The conversation transitions smoothly and logically from discussing nightlife suggestions to specific club details, then to the music and band, and finally to different dance styles.\n*   There are no instances of irrelevant topics being introduced or sudden, illogical shifts in conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n*   There are two brief overlaps detected:\n    *   `[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A:` starts at `00:07` while `[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B:` is still speaking. This is a 1-second overlap.\n    *   `[00:34 - 00:38] Speaker A:` starts at `00:34` while `[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker B:` is still speaking. This is a 1-second overlap.\n*   These overlaps are brief and natural, common in dynamic human conversation, and do not qualify as \"extended overlaps\" that would harm fluency. They likely indicate eagerness to speak or a slight misjudgment of turn-taking cues, which is acceptable.\n*   There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The dialogue flows smoothly and responsively.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--48422",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm so glad we decided to come to the pool today. It's really hot out and the water feels so refreshing,\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but did you remember to bring sunscreen? I forgot mine, and I don't want to get sunburned.\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker A: Oh, I actually did bring some! Let me grab it for you. And yeah, the water feels great. I don't think I could have taken the heat any longer.\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: Thanks, I appreciate it. And yeah, the heat was getting unbearable. But now we can just relax and take a break from it all.\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker A: Exactly. And it's so nice to have some time to catch up. We haven't seen each other in forever!\n[00:34 - 00:38] Speaker B: I know, it feels like it's been forever. But it's only been a few weeks.\n[00:38 - 00:41] Speaker A: It feels like longer because we've been so busy.\n[00:41 - 00:45] Speaker B: Yeah, I know what you mean. I feel like I haven't had a break in months.\n[00:46 - 00:52] Speaker A: Me too. But this is nice, just being able to relax and talk without having to worry about all the\n[00:52 - 00:58] Speaker B: Speaking of relaxing, do you think we should grab some cold drinks? It might make this even more enjoyable.\n[00:58 - 01:04] Speaker A: Great idea! Let's get some drinks. And yeah, I'm really glad we decided to do this today.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speakers directly address each other's points, whether it's answering a question (sunscreen), agreeing with a sentiment (heat, relaxation), or elaborating on a shared experience (busyness). The topic transitions are natural and coherent, flowing from the immediate environment (pool, heat, water) to practical needs (sunscreen), then to shared feelings about relaxation and busy lives, and finally to a new suggestion (drinks) that ties back to the theme of enjoyment. For example, Speaker B's \"Sorry to interrupt, but did you remember to bring sunscreen?\" is a relevant interjection for a practical need in that context. Speaker A's response is direct, and then they smoothly return to the previous topic. Speaker B's \"Speaking of relaxing\" is an excellent example of a natural and coherent topic shift. Overall, the conversation feels like a genuine, flowing exchange between two people.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected. The single brief overlap at [00:06 - 00:07] where Speaker B says \"Sorry to interrupt\" is a natural and acceptable feature of conversational speech, indicating B's awareness of interjecting and not disrupting the flow. All other turns follow smoothly, with appropriate response times that mimic natural conversation. The timing of turns contributes to a sense of effortless back-and-forth.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--477",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, Mary, how are you today?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm fine, Tom. How are you?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: Pretty well. Are you going to John's party tonight?\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: I want to, but I can't. I've found a part-time job\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker A: Oh, you've found a job? I didn't know that.\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: Yes, I work at McDonald's. I'm the assistant manager, but I want to get a different job.\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker A: My father's company will need some people to work for the summer.\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker B: What kind of company does he work for?\n[00:25 - 00:35] Speaker A: It's a construction company. They need twenty-five or thirty new people. They plan to hire them in June. They'll work until the end of August, or the beginning of September.\n[00:35 - 00:39] Speaker B: That sounds like it might be interesting. Don't you know what kind of jobs they might offer\n[00:38 - 00:45] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, I just remembered—what kind of job are you hoping to find after McDonald's?\n[00:45 - 00:53] Speaker B: Oh, I'm looking for something in office management. But back to your question, I was asking if you knew what kind of jobs they have available at the construction company?\n[00:53 - 00:58] Speaker A: Right, I'm not entirely sure, but I can ask my father for more details.\n[00:59 - 01:00] Speaker B: I'd better try it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout.\n- **Initial greetings and topic introduction (John's party):** The conversation starts naturally with greetings, and Speaker A introduces a relevant social event, to which Speaker B responds directly.\n- **Transition to job discussion:** Speaker B's reason for not attending the party (finding a part-time job) leads naturally into a discussion about their new employment and desire for a different job. Speaker A's surprise and subsequent suggestion of their father's company are logical follow-ups.\n- **Details about the construction company:** Speaker B's question about the company type and Speaker A's detailed explanation are directly relevant to the potential job opportunity.\n- **Momentary digression and recovery:** At [00:38 - 00:45], Speaker A explicitly cuts in to ask about Speaker B's desired job type. While this slightly shifts the immediate focus from the construction company's jobs, it's relevant to the broader topic of Speaker B's job search. Speaker B adeptly handles this by briefly answering Speaker A's new question and then immediately re-centering the conversation back to the construction company jobs (\"But back to your question...\"). This demonstrates good interactional management and ensures topic coherence is quickly restored.\n- **Resolution:** The conversation concludes with Speaker A offering to get more details and Speaker B expressing interest, maintaining logical progression.\n\nOverall, the responses are consistently appropriate, maintain topic coherence, and contribute logically to the conversation's flow. The minor digression is well-managed and does not detract significantly from the overall relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high, demonstrating natural turn-taking with no prolonged pauses or harmful overlaps.\n- **Turn-taking:** The speakers take turns smoothly, and responses generally follow quickly after the previous speaker finishes, indicating good engagement.\n- **Pauses:** There are no instances of long, unnatural pauses between speaker turns that would hinder the flow of conversation. For example, the 1-second gap at [00:07 - 00:08] is very brief and natural, allowing for processing and response.\n- **Overlaps:**\n    - At [00:10 - 00:13], Speaker A briefly overlaps with Speaker B, exclaiming \"Oh, you've found a job?\" This is a very common and natural type of overlap, indicating immediate reaction and engagement, rather than an attempt to interrupt or seize the floor. It's a brief, responsive interjection.\n    - At [00:38 - 00:45], Speaker A explicitly states \"Sorry to cut in,\" acknowledging the overlap with Speaker B's previous sentence. While an overlap occurs, the acknowledgement makes it a natural, albeit slightly impolite, conversational move rather than a disfluency. Speaker A immediately self-corrects the interruption with an apology, which is a sign of good interactional awareness.\nNeither of these overlaps is extended or disruptive to the conversation's flow. They are brief and typical of natural speech.\n\nIn conclusion, the conversation flows very naturally with appropriate pacing, turn-taking, and well-managed, brief overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--117833",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I hope you got me a present! I love getting presents.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Actually, I didn't get you a present this year. I'm really sorry\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: What? Why not?\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Well, I just didn't have the budget for it this year. I'm sorry.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: That's so disappointing! I really looked forward to celebrating with\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker B: I understand, and I feel bad about it too. Maybe next year we can budget for it better and I'll get you a present then.\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker A: Yeah, that sounds good. Thanks for understanding.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one, maintaining a clear topic flow from the initial hope for a present, to the disappointment of not receiving one, the explanation, and finally, a resolution. Speaker B's apology and explanation are directly responsive to Speaker A's inquiry and disappointment. Speaker A's reactions are natural and consistent with the unfolding situation. The conversation progresses logically towards a resolution where Speaker A accepts Speaker B's apology and future promise. There are no sudden topic shifts, contradictions, or irrelevant statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very natural and appropriate. I will evaluate the overlaps and pauses:\n*   **[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B:** Speaker A begins \"What? Why not?\" at 0:05 while Speaker B is still finishing \"I'm really sorry\" at 0:06. This is a 1-second overlap. This is a brief and natural overlap, indicative of Speaker A's immediate surprise and eagerness to ask for clarification, which is common in human conversation and does not hinder understanding.\n*   **[00:11 - 00:12] Pause between Speaker B and Speaker A:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn ending at 0:11 and Speaker A's turn beginning at 0:12. This is a very brief and acceptable pause, allowing Speaker A to process Speaker B's explanation before reacting.\n*   **[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A:** Speaker B begins \"I understand, and I feel bad about it too...\" at 0:14 while Speaker A is still saying \"...looked forward to celebrating with\" until 0:16. This is a 2-second overlap. While slightly longer than the first, it appears to be an empathetic overlap where Speaker B interjects to reassure Speaker A as Speaker A is expressing their disappointment. This type of overlap can enhance conversational flow and demonstrate active listening and empathy, rather than being disruptive. It's not an \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" overlap that signifies a breakdown in turn-taking.\n\nNo \"long pauses\" or \"extended overlaps\" were detected that would harm the conversation's flow or naturalness. The brief overlaps and short pause are typical of natural, dynamic human interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--339",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Certainly. Would you like your coffee with your dessert, or\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Oh, before I forget, could you make sure the water is chilled?\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Of course, I'll make sure it's chilled. As I was saying, would you like your coffee with your dinner or later?\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: With my dinner, please. And can you take my order for dessert when you're\n[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I just realized—do you prefer any specific type of dessert, or should I bring the menu again later?\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker B: Actually, I'll decide later, so bringing the menu again would be great.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance throughout.\n- **Turn 1 (A) & Turn 2 (B):** Speaker B's interjection \"Oh, before I forget, could you make sure the water is chilled?\" is a relevant, albeit slightly tangential, request in a service context. It's a natural \"add-on\" thought.\n- **Turn 3 (A):** Speaker A skillfully handles the interjection by first addressing Speaker B's water request (\"Of course, I'll make sure it's chilled\") and then smoothly returning to the original topic using a transition phrase (\"As I was saying, would you like your coffee with your dinner or later?\"). This demonstrates excellent topic coherence and logical sequencing.\n- **Turn 4 (B) & Turn 5 (A):** Speaker B directly answers the coffee question and then begins to move to dessert. Speaker A proactively interrupts (\"Sorry to jump in, but I just realized...\") to clarify a detail about the dessert order. This interruption is highly relevant, as it aims to streamline the process and prevent a potential unnecessary step (like bringing a menu that might not be needed). The apology also softens the interruption.\n- **Turn 6 (B):** Speaker B provides a clear and direct answer to Speaker A's clarifying question.\nOverall, the responses are consistently logical, coherent, and relevant to the ongoing conversation and the transactional context. There are no instances of misinterpretation or irrelevant contributions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- **Overlaps:**\n    - `[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B:` overlaps with `[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A:` for one second (00:02-00:03). This is a brief and natural interjection, especially given the \"Oh, before I forget\" phrasing, which signals an immediate thought.\n    - `[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker A:` overlaps with `[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B:` for one second (00:15-00:16). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which is a common and natural way to manage a brief interruption in real-world conversation.\n    Neither of these overlaps are \"prolonged\" or disruptive; they are brief and handled in a natural, conversational manner.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Each speaker takes their turn promptly, indicating a smooth and continuous flow of conversation. The conversation feels very natural and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--82813",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Wow, I can't believe I won!\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Congratulations! You must be a natural at this kind of\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: Actually, I think it was just luck. But thanks so much. I had a lot of fun playing.\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: That's great to hear. We're glad you enjoyed yourself.\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker A: I did. I'm definitely coming back next year.\n[00:17 - 00:20] Speaker B: We'll be looking forward to seeing you then. Thanks for playing!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining a consistent topic thread about winning, enjoying the experience, and planning to return.\n- Speaker A expresses joy at winning, and Speaker B immediately offers congratulations.\n- Speaker A then modestly attributes the win to luck while expressing enjoyment, which Speaker B promptly acknowledges and affirms (\"That's great to hear. We're glad you enjoyed yourself.\").\n- Speaker A reaffirms their enjoyment and declares intent to return, prompting a relevant and appropriate closing remark from Speaker B (\"We'll be looking forward to seeing you then. Thanks for playing!\").\nThere are no instances of off-topic remarks, non-sequiturs, or misunderstandings. The conversation flows coherently and naturally.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is also very good.\n- There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's initial statement (ending 0:01) and Speaker B's response (starting 0:02), which is a natural and acceptable small pause.\n- There is one instance of an overlap: Speaker A starts speaking at 0:04 while Speaker B is still speaking until 0:05, resulting in a 1-second overlap. Speaker B's phrase \"this kind of\" is cut off. This brief overlap is characteristic of natural, dynamic conversation, where one speaker might interject or anticipate the end of the other's thought. It does not disrupt the flow or comprehension; rather, it adds to the naturalness, indicating eagerness to respond.\n- All subsequent turns flow immediately into each other with no discernible pauses, showing excellent conversational rhythm.\nThere are no prolonged pauses or extended overlaps that would hinder the interaction. The brief overlap and small initial pause are well within acceptable parameters for natural conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--284",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: How do you like this brown dress? It looks great on you.\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker B: I think it's a bit too heavy. Since it's getting warmer at this time of the year, I want something light. What other kinds of material do you have?\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker A: We have silk and cotton dresses. A cotton dress is suitable in spring. We have many different kinds. What color would you maybe prefer\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but could you tell me more about the silk ones first? I'm curious how they compare to cotton in terms of comfort.\n[00:26 - 00:36] Speaker A: Silk is lighter and feels more luxurious, but cotton is breathable and perfect for everyday wear. By the way, I was about to ask what color you prefer for the\n[00:35 - 00:40] Speaker B: Oh, right! I almost forgot to mention, I'm leaning towards white. Do you have that in silk?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the ongoing conversation about selecting a dress.\n- Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's question, provides a reason for dissatisfaction with the current dress, and asks a relevant follow-up question about materials.\n- Speaker A then provides relevant information about materials.\n- Speaker B, despite interrupting, explicitly states their reason (\"Sorry to jump in, but...\") and clarifies their need for more information about the materials comparison, which is directly related to what Speaker A had just mentioned. This shows active listening and desire for specific details, maintaining topic coherence.\n- Speaker A then provides the requested comparison.\n- Speaker B's final interjection (\"Oh, right! I almost forgot to mention...\") acknowledges Speaker A's repeated attempt to ask about color and then provides the color preference, immediately linking it back to the material (silk) that was just discussed. This demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence, as Speaker B remembers previous points and integrates them.\nThe topic remains consistently on selecting a suitable dress, moving through material, comfort, and color considerations without any irrelevant tangents.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very natural and appropriate.\n- There is a 1-second pause between [00:10] and [00:11], which is a very small and acceptable pause in natural conversation, allowing for natural turn-taking.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - At [00:19], Speaker B starts speaking exactly as Speaker A finishes. Speaker B's phrase \"Sorry to jump in\" explicitly acknowledges this brief interruption, which is a common and natural conversational softener. This is a brief and acceptable overlap.\n    - At [00:35 - 00:36], there is a 1-second overlap where Speaker B starts their turn while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This overlap is brief and contributes to the natural flow, as Speaker B seems to anticipate or react to Speaker A's repeated attempt to ask about color (\"By the way, I was about to ask what color you prefer for the\") with an immediate \"Oh, right! I almost forgot to mention\". This type of anticipatory or reactive overlap is common in fluent, engaged conversation and is not \"harmful\" or prolonged.\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns or extended, disruptive overlaps. The turn-taking feels dynamic and realistic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--85",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Excuse me, I'm lost. Can you show me where I am in this map?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Er, let me see. Oh, look, you're right here. Pretty close to the Olympic Park.\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: That's great! It's not my day. I just have very bad sense of direction, and\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker B: Is this your first time here? Where are you going?\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker A: I am supposed to go to Liu Ichang.\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker B: Oh, there are many Chinese antique stores. They get paintings, too. Do you get interested in art, or\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker A: Sorry, I just realized I didn't ask—can you tell me how to get there?\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker B: Wow, it is quite far away from here. I'm afraid you're gonna have to take Bus No. 713.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A clearly states their problem (\"I'm lost\") and requests help, and Speaker B immediately responds by locating A on the map. When Speaker A trails off while explaining their poor sense of direction, Speaker B asks relevant follow-up questions (\"Is this your first time here? Where are you going?\") to better understand the situation and provide targeted assistance. Speaker A then provides the destination. Speaker B's subsequent comment about \"Liu Ichang\" being Chinese antique stores and asking about interest in art is a slight conversational tangent but still related to the destination. Crucially, Speaker A gracefully brings the conversation back on track by stating, \"Sorry, I just realized I didn't ask—can you tell me how to get there?\", which is a highly relevant and necessary correction to achieve their goal. Speaker B then provides the direct answer. The conversation maintains a coherent topic flow aimed at solving Speaker A's initial problem of being lost and needing directions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are a couple of brief overlaps detected:\n- At [00:13], Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence at [00:14]. This is an overlap of approximately 1 second.\n- At [00:23], Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence at [00:24]. This is an overlap of approximately 1 second.\nThese are brief overlaps, which are common in natural conversation and do not constitute \"extended overlaps\" that would be considered harmful. Similarly, there are no long pauses between speaker turns. For instance, the pause between Speaker B's question ending at [00:15] and Speaker A's answer starting at [00:16] is only 1 second, which is acceptable. The turn-taking feels dynamic and natural, without awkward silences or disruptive prolonged overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--23",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Um, this steak, I asked for to be medium rare, and\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, sir. Just to confirm, you wanted it medium rare, correct?\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: Yes, medium rare. But I'm afraid it isn't. It's a bit too well done and rather tough. Would you mind changing it?\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B: If it is not to your satisfaction, I'll certainly bring you another. But I'm afraid you may have to wait for a few minutes.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance.\n- Speaker A initiates a complaint about their steak, stating it was ordered medium rare.\n- Speaker B's immediate response is to seek clarification and confirm the order, which is a logical and relevant first step in addressing a customer complaint. The \"Sorry to interrupt\" indicates awareness and politeness despite the overlap.\n- Speaker A then confirms the initial order and elaborates on the problem (too well done, tough) and explicitly asks for a change, which is a direct and coherent follow-up.\n- Speaker B's final response directly addresses the request by offering a replacement and transparently managing expectations regarding a potential wait time.\nAll turns contribute meaningfully to the conversation's goal (resolving the steak issue) and demonstrate logical consistency and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates good interactional fluency.\n- There is one instance of overlap between Speaker A (00:00 - 00:03) and Speaker B (00:02 - 00:07). This overlap lasts for approximately 1 second (from 00:02 to 00:03). Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt, sir.\" This is a brief and acceptable overlap, not an extended or disruptive one, and serves a natural conversational function (clarification).\n- There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn ending at 00:14 and Speaker B's turn starting at 00:15. This is a natural and brief pause that does not disrupt the flow.\n- No other significant pauses or prolonged overlaps are present. The conversation flows naturally, resembling a real-life interaction where minor overlaps and short pauses are common.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--581",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: This is my secret garden.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: What do you grow here?\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: Flowers, fruits, veggies - everything! My favorite is my rose garden.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: Oh, that sounds lovely. What do you plant?\n[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker A: I've got rosemary, thyme, lavender, basil, dill, rose hip, lemon balm, strawberries, raspberries - the whole backyard is\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but do you have any tips for growing lavender? Mine never seems to thrive.\n[00:24 - 00:36] Speaker A: Yes, I can share some tips on that. Lavender needs well-drained soil and plenty of sunlight. But I haven't finished listing everything yet. My backyard is about 1/4 acre and there's\n[00:36 - 00:43] Speaker B: Wow, I think my backyard is about 10' by 10'. I can't believe you don't have a lot of space. My backyard is much bigger than that.\n[00:43 - 00:47] Speaker A: Actually, I do have space, it's just kind of a mess.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe initial turns of the dialogue demonstrate good response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker B's questions naturally follow Speaker A's statements about their garden, and Speaker A provides relevant answers.\n\nHowever, there are two points where response relevance falters:\n1.  **[00:24 - 00:36] Speaker A:** Speaker A answers the question about lavender tips, but then abruptly pivots back to the previous topic of listing plants and introduces the backyard size (\"My backyard is about 1/4 acre\") without smoothly transitioning or fully completing the lavender advice. While the information itself isn't irrelevant, the way it's presented makes the flow feel disjointed.\n2.  **[00:36 - 00:43] Speaker B:** This is the most significant issue for response relevance. Speaker A states their backyard is \"about 1/4 acre.\" Speaker B responds with \"I can't believe you don't have a lot of space. My backyard is much bigger than that.\" A 1/4 acre is a considerable amount of space (approximately 10,890 square feet), while Speaker B's 10x10 foot backyard is only 100 square feet. Speaker B's statement demonstrates a clear logical inconsistency and a misunderstanding of what Speaker A said. It breaks topic coherence and requires Speaker A to correct the misinterpretation, indicating a failure in understanding on Speaker B's part or a deliberate, nonsensical attempt to one-up the other speaker.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction generally demonstrates good interactional fluency. The turns are relatively quick, with no long pauses indicated by the timestamps. There is a brief overlap between [00:19 - 00:20] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. However, Speaker B immediately acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which is a common and acceptable politeness marker in natural conversation. This type of brief, acknowledged overlap does not significantly disrupt the conversational flow or mutual understanding.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--177",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Where to, ma'am?\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: The Grand Hotel.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker A: The Grand Hotel?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yes. Do you know where it's located?\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, ma'am, but is it the one near the central park or the one closer to the river?\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: It's actually on 11th Avenue, Park Street. But you mentioned two locations—are there two Grand Hotels in the area?\n[00:17 - 00:25] Speaker A: Yes, there are. The one near the river is quite new. But since you mentioned 11th Avenue, I know exactly where to go now.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency.\n*   **Speaker A (00:00 - 00:01):** Asks a relevant opening question for a driver.\n*   **Speaker B (00:01 - 00:02):** Provides a direct and relevant answer.\n*   **Speaker A (00:02 - 00:04):** Confirms the destination, a common and logical step for clarity.\n*   **Speaker B (00:04 - 00:06):** Confirms and then asks a relevant follow-up question about the driver's knowledge of the location.\n*   **Speaker A (00:05 - 00:11):** Immediately seeks clarification, offering two specific options for \"The Grand Hotel.\" This shows proactive problem-solving and ensures the correct destination is identified, maintaining logical consistency. The apology for interruption also indicates awareness of conversational norms.\n*   **Speaker B (00:11 - 00:17):** Provides a precise address and logically follows up on Speaker A's comment about multiple locations, demonstrating attentiveness and coherence.\n*   **Speaker A (00:17 - 00:25):** Confirms the existence of two hotels and, based on the new information (11th Avenue), confirms understanding and ability to proceed. This effectively closes the clarification loop.\n\nThe topic remains coherent throughout, focusing solely on identifying and locating \"The Grand Hotel.\" Each turn directly contributes to this goal.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally very good, with one brief overlap detected.\n*   **Overlap:** There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker B (`[00:04 - 00:06] Yes. Do you know where it's located?`) and Speaker A (`[00:05 - 00:11] Sorry to interrupt, ma'am, but is it the one near the central park or the one closer to the river?`). Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence.\n*   **Evaluation of Overlap:** While this is an overlap, it is brief (1 second) and immediately followed by an apology (\"Sorry to interrupt\"). This indicates Speaker A's awareness of the interruption and its functional purpose (seeking immediate clarification to avoid a potential longer misunderstanding). The dialogue recovers instantly, and Speaker B responds naturally, showing no disruption caused by the overlap. As per the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this overlap, despite the explicit apology, falls into the brief category and does not hinder the conversational flow or understanding.\n*   **Pauses:** No long pauses are detected between turns. Turn-taking is quick and efficient.\n\nOverall, the conversation flows very naturally and efficiently despite the minor, functional overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--17",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Yeah. Just pull on this strip. Then peel off the the top\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: Wait, before we go any further, are you sure this is a good idea? I mean, what if they react badly?\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker A: You might make a few enemies this way. But if they don't think this is fun, they're not meant to be our friends.\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B: You mean your friends. I think it's cruel.\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker A: Yeah. But it's fun. Look at those two ugly old ladies. . . or are they just wearing\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker B: Sorry, I didn't catch that—are you sure we should be doing this? What if they notice?\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker A: I was saying, or are they men? Never mind, just hurry! Get a shot!. . . Hand it over!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates an action, and Speaker B immediately raises concerns about its morality and potential consequences. Speaker A consistently dismisses these concerns by emphasizing the \"fun\" aspect and then refocusing on the targets and the execution of the action. Speaker B, in turn, persistently challenges Speaker A's viewpoint, reiterating moral objections and practical risks. The conversation maintains a clear topic coherence, revolving around the contentious action Speaker A is trying to perform and Speaker B's attempts to question or halt it. Each turn is a direct and logical progression from the previous one, whether in agreement, disagreement, or a push for action.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are several instances of overlapping speech, but all are brief (around 1 second or less) and appear natural, typical of an engaged conversation, especially one with differing opinions where one speaker might interject or respond quickly. For example, Speaker B starts speaking at 0:03 while Speaker A finishes at 0:04, and Speaker B again at 0:25 while Speaker A finishes at 0:26. These are not prolonged overlaps that disrupt understanding. Similarly, the pauses between turns are consistently short (around 1 second), indicating a fluid back-and-forth without any awkward silences or delays. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected that would negatively impact the flow of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--486",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Bob!\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Oh hi, what's up?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: I just won a gold medal in a tennis tournament.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker B: Wow congratulations!\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker A: Thank you! Have you ever won any sports\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but which tournament was it? Was it a local or a national event?\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker A: It was a local tournament. So, have you ever won anything?\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker B: Yes, I won the college volleyball championship last week!\n[00:23 - 00:25] Speaker A: Nice! What did you get as\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: Actually, I wanted to ask, how did you prepare for the tournament? Any special training routines?\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker A: I followed a strict training schedule. But back to my question, what did you win?\n[00:35 - 00:37] Speaker B: A Big Red Varsity sweatshirt!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue demonstrates good logical consistency and topic coherence overall.\n*   Speaker B's first interruption at [00:10 - 00:15] to ask for clarification about the tournament is relevant to Speaker A's news and Speaker B explicitly apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), maintaining conversational etiquette.\n*   Speaker A responds to this clarification request and then immediately re-initiates their original question, showing good topic management [00:15 - 00:19].\n*   Speaker B answers A's question directly [00:20 - 00:22].\n*   Speaker B's second interruption at [00:24 - 00:29] shifts the topic back to Speaker A's preparation, cutting off Speaker A's question about Speaker B's prize. While this is a minor deviation from the immediate logical flow (ignoring A's current question), it's still related to the broader theme of sports achievements and Speaker A's initial news.\n*   Speaker A handles this well by first answering B's new question, then firmly but politely re-asserting their original question (\"But back to my question, what did you win?\") [00:30 - 00:35]. This demonstrates strong conversational control and ensures that the initial line of questioning is not completely lost, leading to Speaker B finally answering the question [00:35 - 00:37].\nDespite the two interruptions from Speaker B, the speakers consistently address each other's points, and Speaker A's ability to steer the conversation back on track ensures the overall logical consistency and topic coherence remain high. There are no instances where turns are completely irrelevant or nonsensical.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, indicating a natural conversation.\n*   There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    *   [00:10 - 00:11]: Speaker B overlaps Speaker A for approximately 1 second to ask a clarifying question. Speaker B immediately apologizes for the interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which is an explicit acknowledgement of the overlap and enhances fluency. This type of brief, polite interruption for clarification is common in natural conversation and is acceptable.\n    *   [00:24 - 00:25]: Speaker B overlaps Speaker A for approximately 1 second to introduce a new question. While this interruption leads to a topic shift, the overlap itself is brief and not prolonged.\n*   There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The turns flow smoothly from one speaker to the next.\nThe overlaps are brief and do not constitute \"prolonged overlapping turns\" that would be considered harmful. The dialogue maintains a natural conversational pace without awkward silences or significant disruption caused by speech overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--597",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I love islands! Which is your favorite place to visit?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: I really like hiking. It's so peaceful to be out in nature and\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I just got excited thinking about my last hiking trip. Have you ever tried hiking in the Alps?\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker B: The Alps are amazing! But I really love hiking in South America. The landscapes are so diverse and the culture\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker A: That's wonderful! I was curious, though, which specific trails in South America do you recommend?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **Speaker A's initial question** about \"favorite place to visit\" is broad.\n2.  **Speaker B's response** \"I really like hiking\" is relevant as it defines the *type* of place Speaker B enjoys visiting, even if not a specific geographical location. It implies a preference for natural, outdoor settings.\n3.  **Speaker A's first interjection** is directly related to Speaker B's new topic (hiking), and Speaker A explicitly apologizes for interrupting, then brings up their own hiking experience and asks a related question about the Alps. This shows engagement and topic continuity.\n4.  **Speaker B's response** about the Alps and then shifting to South America is a logical progression, elaborating on their preferences within the \"hiking\" theme.\n5.  **Speaker A's final question** about specific trails in South America directly follows Speaker B's statement, demonstrating active listening and a desire for more detail on the established topic.\nThe conversation stays coherent around the theme of travel and outdoor activities, with logical transitions and follow-up questions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, although there are two brief overlaps.\n1.  **Overlap 1 ([00:06 - 00:07]):** Speaker A interrupts Speaker B (\"Sorry to interrupt, but...\") with a 1-second overlap. This is explicitly acknowledged and apologized for by Speaker A, making it a socially acceptable and common type of interruption in natural conversation, often indicating excitement or eager engagement rather than a disruptive takeover. It's a \"brief overlap,\" not a prolonged one.\n2.  **Overlap 2 ([00:18 - 00:20]):** Speaker A interrupts Speaker B again, this time with a 2-second overlap (\"That's wonderful! I was curious, though...\"). This is slightly longer than the first but still falls within the realm of brief, eager interjections, especially given that Speaker A is following up on Speaker B's statement with a direct and relevant question. It doesn't seem to disrupt Speaker B's turn significantly as Speaker B was elaborating on \"culture,\" and Speaker A's question steers the conversation towards specific trails, which is a natural progression.\n3.  **Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between [00:13] and [00:14], which is a very natural and appropriate length, not a \"long pause.\"\nGiven that \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" these instances do not significantly harm the interactional flow. The dialogue feels dynamic and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--186",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Excuse me. I'm looking for Mr. Lee. Here is his parcel.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Oh, just put it on my desk. I need to sign here, right? Will you please hold on\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I need to make sure—is Mr. Lee expecting this parcel today?\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker B: Yes, he is. I was just about to ask if you could wait for a second because I happened to have something to express regarding the\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker A: Sure, I can wait. What did you want to express?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, contributing to the development of the conversation's core topics (parcel delivery and Speaker B's follow-up request).\n\n*   Speaker A initiates clearly about the parcel.\n*   Speaker B responds by instructing on parcel placement and asking about a signature, showing engagement with the delivery.\n*   Speaker A's \"interruption\" is contextually appropriate and vital for clarification regarding Mr. Lee's expectation of the parcel, indicating responsibility. It prevents a potential mishandling of the parcel.\n*   Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's question (\"Yes, he is\") and then returns to their original intent (\"I was just about to ask...\"). This shows logical consistency in their thought process.\n*   Speaker A's final turn confirms willingness to wait and prompts Speaker B to elaborate, demonstrating active listening and maintaining topic coherence.\n\nThere are no irrelevant turns, misunderstandings, or logical inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits excellent fluency.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are seamless or involve brief overlaps, indicating a natural conversational rhythm.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two instances of brief overlaps (1 second each):\n    *   [00:07 - 00:08] Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which is a common and natural conversational softener for a brief, necessary interjection. This is not an \"extended\" or \"harmful\" overlap.\n    *   [00:19 - 00:20] Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing their sentence. This also appears to be a brief, anticipatory overlap, where Speaker A is confirming understanding and readiness to proceed. This is also typical in natural, engaged conversation and does not hinder comprehension or flow.\n\nNeither of these overlaps can be classified as \"extended overlaps\" that would negatively impact the interaction. The pacing feels natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--67026",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi! I was wondering if I could order a cake from you?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Of course! What kind of cake are you looking for?\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: A chocolate cake with pink frosting and sprin— I was\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker B: Oh, sorry to interrupt, but do you have any specific dietary requirements, like gluten-free or nut-free?\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: No, no dietary restrictions. Just a regular chocolate cake with pink frosting and sprinkles.\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker B: Great! When do you need it for?\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker A: Saturday. I'm having a party.\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker B: Okay, we'll have it ready for you by then. Is there anything else I can help you with today?\n[00:33 - 00:34] Speaker A: Nope, that's all. Thank you!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn is logically consistent with the preceding turn and the overall goal of ordering a cake.\n- Speaker A initiates the request, and Speaker B immediately asks for specific details (\"What kind of cake are you looking for?\").\n- Speaker B's interruption to ask about \"dietary requirements\" (00:09 - 00:15) is highly relevant and proactive. It's crucial information for a cake order, and asking it early is efficient and logically sound, preventing potential issues later.\n- Speaker A's response addresses the interruption and reiterates the original request, maintaining topic coherence.\n- The subsequent questions about timing (\"When do you need it for?\") and the closing offers of assistance are standard and appropriate for a service interaction.\nThere are no instances of off-topic remarks, illogical leaps, or unaddressed questions. The conversation progresses smoothly and purposefully.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction generally displays good fluency, with natural turn-taking.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap: Speaker B starts speaking at 00:09 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:10. This is a 1-second overlap. However, Speaker B immediately acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption (\"Oh, sorry to interrupt\"). This indicates awareness and politeness, mitigating the negative impact. Given the prompt states \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" this brief, acknowledged overlap for a critical question falls within the acceptable range and does not represent a \"prolonged overlapping turn.\"\n- **Pauses:** There are small, natural pauses between turns (e.g., 1-second gaps between 00:15-00:16, 00:27-00:28, 00:32-00:33). These are typical in natural conversation and do not indicate hesitation or difficulty in the interaction. There are no long or unnatural silences.\nOverall, the interaction feels natural and smooth, despite the single brief, acknowledged overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--94397",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I can't believe how personal some of those questions were! I felt really caught off guard when\n[00:04 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but do you think they were trying to test how you'd handle unexpected situations? It seems like they were probing for more than just surface-level answers.\n[00:13 - 00:24] Speaker A: Yeah, maybe. But still, I wish I had been more prepared for it. I felt like such an idiot when they started asking me about my childhood and my parents' relationship, especially\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker B: Divorce? That must've been tough to talk about on the spot. But honestly, it might have shown them how resilient you are.\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker A: Yeah, I guess you're right. I just hate feeling like I didn't do my best.\n[00:35 - 00:39] Speaker B: Well, don't beat yourself up too much about it. I'm sure you did fine.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency.\nSpeaker B consistently responds to Speaker A's emotional state and the topic of personal questions. For instance, after Speaker A expresses feeling \"caught off guard,\" Speaker B offers a plausible interpretation (\"trying to test how you'd handle unexpected situations?\"). When Speaker A brings up sensitive topics like \"childhood and my parents' relationship,\" Speaker B empathizes and infers the specific topic (\"Divorce?\") before reframing it positively. Finally, when Speaker A expresses self-doubt (\"I didn't do my best\"), Speaker B provides direct reassurance. Speaker A's responses are also logically consistent, acknowledging Speaker B's points (\"Yeah, maybe,\" \"Yeah, I guess you're right\") while continuing to express their feelings, which is a natural progression in such a conversation. The topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on the challenging interview experience and the emotional aftermath. There are no abrupt topic shifts or illogical jumps in conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two very brief overlaps: [00:04 - 00:05] and [00:23 - 00:24]. Both are only 1 second long. The first overlap is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Sorry to jump in\"), indicating awareness and politeness, and is a common feature of natural conversation. The second overlap also appears to be Speaker B anticipating or collaboratively completing Speaker A's thought, which is highly natural. There are no extended or prolonged overlaps that would hinder communication. Similarly, there are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and smooth (e.g., a 1-second gap between [00:29] and [00:30]), contributing to a natural and dynamic conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--5160",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I can't believe this is happening. My girlfriend is in prison for drug possession and I know she didn't do anything wrong. She\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: Liz, I'm sorry, but there's not much we can do. The evidence against your girlfriend was pretty damning.\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: But she didn't do anything! This is so unfair.\n[00:17 - 00:26] Speaker B: I understand how you feel, but unfortunately the law is the law. Sometimes people are convicted of crimes they didn't commit, but there's not much we can do unless we\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker A: So you're just going to give up? Aren't you going to try to appeal the conviction or something?\n[00:30 - 00:43] Speaker B: We could try, but it would be a long shot. And even if we did win on appeal, your girlfriend would still have to serve out her sentence unless the judge granted her bail pending the appeal. Which is unlikely given the severity of the charge.\n[00:43 - 00:46] Speaker A: This is ridiculous! There has to be something we can do!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A expresses distress and disbelief, and Speaker B consistently responds by acknowledging the situation, explaining the legal realities, and addressing Speaker A's questions and emotional state. For instance, when Speaker A asks about an appeal, Speaker B directly explains the difficulties and low chances, maintaining topic coherence. There are no irrelevant turns or illogical jumps in the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n*   Most turns follow immediately (e.g., [00:07 - 00:07], [00:13 - 00:13], [00:30 - 00:30], [00:43 - 00:43]).\n*   There is one brief 1-second pause ([00:16] Speaker A ends, [00:17] Speaker B starts), which is natural and not considered prolonged.\n*   There is one brief 1-second overlap ([00:25] Speaker A starts, [00:26] Speaker B ends). This occurs as Speaker B is trailing off (\"unless we...\"), and Speaker A interjects with a challenge (\"So you're just going to give up?\"). This is a common and natural type of interjection in conversational turn-taking, especially in emotional or challenging discussions, and is not a prolonged or harmful overlap.\nOverall, the pacing feels natural and conversational, without disruptive pauses or overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--481",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Did your meal meet with your approval?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Our meal was absolutely perfect!\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: How about a dessert to top off that wonderful meal?\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: Dessert sounds perfect, but I would like to split something with my friend since\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but do you have any lighter dessert options? Some of us might prefer something not too heavy.\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker B: Actually, I was just about to mention that we were thinking of splitting something. What do you have on this evening's dessert list?\n[00:24 - 00:32] Speaker A: On this evening's dessert list, we have chocolate mousse cake, homemade fresh strawberry shortcake, and a spicy rum apple crisp.\n[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker B: I think that the apple crisp would be wonderful.\n[00:35 - 00:39] Speaker A: One dessert will serve two, so would you like to split a second one?\n[00:39 - 00:44] Speaker B: We would also like a piece of chocolate mousse cake. Could you bring us four dessert forks, please?\n[00:44 - 00:46] Speaker A: How about some coffee and tea as well?\n[00:47 - 00:49] Speaker B: We are all tea drinkers. Please bring us four teas.\n[00:50 - 00:54] Speaker A: I will prepare your desserts and have someone bring you your drinks right away.\n[00:54 - 00:59] Speaker B: Oh, could you make sure to bring the hot drinks first? That would be great. Thanks!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance throughout. Each speaker's turn is a logical and coherent follow-up to the previous one.\n- Speaker B's initial responses are direct answers to Speaker A's questions about the meal and dessert.\n- Speaker A's interruption at [00:11] is an attempt to anticipate Speaker B's needs regarding lighter dessert options, which, while an interruption, is highly relevant to the ongoing discussion about dessert preferences and Speaker B's desire to \"split something.\" Speaker A correctly interprets that \"splitting\" might imply a desire for something less heavy or smaller.\n- Speaker B's response at [00:18] clarifies their original intent (\"splitting something\") and seamlessly transitions back to asking for the dessert list, maintaining topic coherence.\n- The subsequent exchange about dessert choices, serving sizes, and additional requests (forks, drinks, hot drinks first) all flow logically and are perfectly relevant to a restaurant interaction.\n- The detail about \"four dessert forks\" and \"four teas\" demonstrates consistent understanding of the implied number of diners, contributing to logical consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns; most transitions are immediate or involve only a 1-second pause, which is natural for conversation.\n- There is one instance of an overlap at [00:11 - 00:17] where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. However, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this by saying \"Sorry to jump in,\" which naturalizes the interruption. The actual overlap in speech (where both are speaking simultaneously) is very brief (around 1 second, from 0:11 to 0:12), which falls into the \"brief overlaps are acceptable\" category. It does not disrupt the conversation's flow or coherence but rather makes it feel more realistic and spontaneous. Speaker B smoothly takes the next turn, indicating no significant disruption.\n- The dialogue maintains a natural and efficient pace.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--409",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I'd love to have my own farm.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: It would be very hard work. Are you sure?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: I wouldn't mind getting up early morning and the physical work would make me fit and it\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker B: But have you thought about how different it would be from your current job? I mean, farming is a completely different lifestyle.\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: That's one reason I'd like to try it. I'd really like to get away from working 9 to 5 in an office.\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker B: You'd need a lot of training before becoming a farmer. It's not something you can just walk into without\n[00:26 - 00:39] Speaker A: Actually, my uncle owns a farm, and I've spent some time working with him. I love being in the countryside with farm animals and green fields. Oh, and speaking of training, I was going to mention that I've learned quite a bit during those visits.\n[00:40 - 00:48] Speaker B: Well, I'd certainly come and visit you. It would be great to take a working holiday on a farm. I'd love to get away from the hustle and bustle of the city for a while.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A consistently expresses their desire for a farm and addresses Speaker B's concerns directly. Speaker B raises pertinent challenges (hard work, different lifestyle, training) which are directly acknowledged and countered by Speaker A with relevant information (e.g., spending time with an uncle on a farm, learning during visits). The conversation flows logically, moving from initial interest, to challenges, to justifications, and finally to Speaker B's shift to a supportive stance. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant contributions. Each turn builds upon the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n*   **Pauses:** Pauses between turns are consistently brief (e.g., 1 second from 0:01-0:02, 0:39-0:40), which are natural and acceptable in conversational flow.\n*   **Overlaps:**\n    *   At [00:08 - 00:15], Speaker B begins speaking at 0:08 while Speaker A is still speaking until 0:09. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A's utterance \"and it\" suggests an incomplete thought or a trailing off, making Speaker B's interjection feel like a natural, albeit eager, turn-take rather than a disruptive, prolonged interruption.\n    *   At [00:26 - 00:39], Speaker A begins at 0:26, precisely when Speaker B ends their turn (0:21 - 0:26). This is a very brief, almost simultaneous turn transition, which is common in natural conversation and indicates high engagement, especially as Speaker B's sentence (\"without\") was incomplete.\nConsidering the context of the overlaps (one being a mild interjection during a trailing off, the other being a rapid, engaged turn-take), they do not constitute \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns that are harmful.\" The conversation feels natural and dynamic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--605",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi! I'm Alice.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Hi, I'm Bob.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker A: How was your day?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: Oh, pretty busy. I was helping my dad work on a remodel for my house.\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker A: Wow, I don't think I could do that.\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker B: It's not that bad, but I prefer to do it myself.\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker A: What are you renovating right now?\n[00:18 - 00:22] Speaker B: My bathroom. We're getting a bigger shower and a new vanity to\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker A: Oh, are you considering any specific designs or materials for the shower?\n[00:26 - 00:34] Speaker B: Yes, we're thinking of using ceramic tiles with a glass door. And for the sink, we're opting for a modern style. By the way, do you mind if I try the sink?\n[00:34 - 00:40] Speaker A: What? No, I just want to make sure it works before we install it. You want to give it a try?\n[00:41 - 00:42] Speaker B: Sure, why not!\n[00:42 - 00:46] Speaker A: Alright, hold on. Just lean back, and I'll turn on the water.\n[00:47 - 00:48] Speaker B: Do you want me to look away?\n[00:49 - 00:56] Speaker A: No, it's fine. Just lean back. And make sure you're not leaning back too hard. You don't want to crack the porcelain!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. The conversation flows naturally from initial greetings to discussing daily activities (remodeling), then narrowing down to specific details of the renovation (bathroom, shower, vanity). The sudden introduction of \"By the way, do you mind if I try the sink?\" by Speaker B, while initially surprising to Speaker A (\"What?\"), is immediately clarified and integrated into the conversation. This suggests an implicit shared context (e.g., they are physically near the sink being discussed), which makes the subsequent dialogue about testing the sink logically consistent and coherent. Speaker A's subsequent instructions and warnings (\"lean back,\" \"turn on the water,\" \"don't want to crack the porcelain\") further solidify this implied context and maintain the logical flow. There are no instances of irrelevant responses or significant topic shifts that break coherence; even the abrupt shift to the sink test is quickly contextualized.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent interactional fluency.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap between [00:21 - 00:22] where Speaker A begins their turn while Speaker B is finishing. This is a very common and natural occurrence in real-time conversation and is not an \"extended overlap.\" It indicates active listening and engagement rather than a breakdown in turn-taking.\n- **Pauses:** All pauses between speaker turns are brief (typically 1 second). For example, [00:01 - 00:02], [00:03 - 00:04], [00:09 - 00:10], etc. These short pauses are natural for conversational rhythm and do not indicate hesitation, awkwardness, or a breakdown in fluency. There are no \"long pauses\" that would be detrimental to the interaction.\nOverall, the turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--34921",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I just don't understand why they're not getting it. I've tried explaining it in different ways, but nothing seems to make the\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Maybe you're just not reaching them the way you need to. What kind of things do you typically do when you're teaching?\n[00:12 - 00:21] Speaker A: Well, I usually start by writing out the equations on the board and then walking through each step with them. But even when I do that, they still don't seem to grasp\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but do you think maybe you're going too fast? Or maybe they're getting lost in all the steps?\n[00:26 - 00:38] Speaker A: Yeah, that could be it. I know a lot of times I feel like I'm talking too fast and they can't keep up. But at the same time, if I slow down too much then they get bored and tune out.\n[00:38 - 00:51] Speaker B: Well, maybe there's a happy medium somewhere in there. Instead of writing out all the steps on the board, why don't you just write out the final equation and then go through each step with them verbally? That way they can see what you're doing and follow along more easily.\n[00:52 - 00:58] Speaker A: That's actually a really good idea! I'll try that next time and see how it goes. Thanks for the advice!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker A introduces a problem (students not understanding), and Speaker B consistently responds by trying to understand the root cause and offer solutions. Each turn builds logically on the previous one:\n- Speaker A describes the problem.\n- Speaker B asks for context/methods.\n- Speaker A provides context/methods.\n- Speaker B identifies potential issues based on the provided context and offers suggestions.\n- Speaker A acknowledges the issues and elaborates.\n- Speaker B provides a concrete, actionable solution.\n- Speaker A expresses gratitude and intent to follow the advice.\nThe conversation maintains a clear focus on the teaching challenge and its potential solutions. There are no irrelevant detours or logical inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two brief overlaps detected:\n- [00:06 - 00:07]: A 1-second overlap where Speaker B starts speaking just as Speaker A is finishing. This is a common and natural occurrence in conversational speech, indicating active listening and turn-taking without disrupting the flow.\n- [00:20 - 00:21]: Another 1-second overlap where Speaker B interjects, explicitly acknowledging the interruption with \"Sorry to jump in.\" This is a highly natural and polite way to manage a brief overlap and keep the conversation dynamic.\nThere are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns. The pause between [00:51 - 00:52] is only 1 second, which is negligible and allows for natural processing time. The pacing of the dialogue feels natural and dynamic, without any disruptive hesitations or extended simultaneous speech.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--297",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, welcome to Berlin, it's great to see you again.\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: Yeah, good to see you too. Have you been waiting here at the station long?\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A: Only 15 minutes, but let's get out of this cold and go to my apartment. How are you feeling after that long bus ride?\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker B: It wasn't too bad, it was only 19 hours.\n[00:19 - 00:30] Speaker A: That's crazy. You could have flown here from London for 60 euros and it would have only taken an hour and a half. Was it really worth all that time just to save a bit of money, or\n[00:29 - 00:36] Speaker B: Actually, it wasn't just about saving money. The main reason I took the bus was because it's more environmentally friendly than flying.\n[00:36 - 00:45] Speaker A: I think it's great that you want to help the environment, but you look so exhausted right now. I just think you should be a little more careful with your health.\n[00:46 - 00:55] Speaker B: Well, I wasn't expecting the bus to be so unpleasant, but you're right. Next time I visit you, I'll probably fly. By the way, you were saying something about saving a bit of money?\n[00:55 - 01:04] Speaker A: Oh, yeah. I was just wondering if it was really worth all that time just to save some money. But I get it now, your reason was more about the environment.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn is directly related to the previous one, demonstrating strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial question about waiting time is a logical follow-up to Speaker A's welcome.\n- Speaker A's response and subsequent question about the bus ride maintain the topic.\n- Speaker B's humorous answer about the 19-hour ride sets up Speaker A's reaction and question about the cost-saving motivation.\n- Speaker B then logically corrects Speaker A's assumption about saving money by introducing the environmental reason.\n- Speaker A acknowledges this new reason while also showing concern for Speaker B's health, linking back to the exhaustion from the long bus ride.\n- Speaker B then acknowledges Speaker A's health concern and future travel plans, and cleverly loops back to Speaker A's earlier point about saving money, showing good recall and engagement.\n- Speaker A then clarifies their original point and confirms understanding of Speaker B's true motivation.\nThe conversation flows naturally, with each participant building upon or responding directly to the points raised by the other. There are no irrelevant detours or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are no long pauses between turns that would disrupt the flow of conversation. The timing between speakers seems natural and conversational.\n- There is one minor, brief overlap identified at [0:29 - 0:30] where Speaker B starts speaking slightly before Speaker A finishes their sentence (\"or\"). This is a very common and natural occurrence in fluid conversation and does not constitute an \"extended overlap.\" It does not hinder comprehension or the natural progression of the dialogue. The dialogue maintains a smooth, back-and-forth rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--16906",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I love you. I think I've loved you since the moment we met at\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: I love you too. I never thought I could be so lucky to find someone like you.\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: I'm so glad we found each other. I can't imagine my life without you by\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: I feel the same way. You are everything I've ever wanted in a partner and more.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn directly addresses and builds upon the sentiment expressed by the previous speaker. Speaker B reciprocates Speaker A's declaration of love and elaborates on their feelings of luck. Speaker A then expresses gladness and dependence, which Speaker B affirms and expands upon by describing Speaker A as everything they've ever wanted. The logical consistency is perfect, maintaining a clear and coherent theme of mutual affection and deep connection throughout the conversation. There are no deviations from the topic, and the flow of sentiment is entirely natural and progressive.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n- [00:03 - 00:04]: Speaker B begins speaking 1 second before Speaker A finishes.\n- [00:11 - 00:12]: Speaker B begins speaking 1 second before Speaker A finishes.\n\nThese are considered \"brief overlaps\" (1 second each) and, as per the instructions, are acceptable. They suggest a natural, engaged conversation where speakers are responsive and perhaps anticipating or confirming each other's thoughts, rather than interrupting or struggling to take turns. There are no long pauses detected between turns, indicating a smooth and continuous flow of conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--246",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Marquet, do you think I should enroll in the science course?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Yes, I think so. If you want to graduate this year, you've got to take a science course.\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: Right, I figure since you are doing premedical, you know about the very specific requirements\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but just to clarify, are you looking for a course that's more introductory or something more advanced?\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker A: I was actually going to ask about that. I think I need a good introductory course for non-science majors. What do you think?\n[00:28 - 00:35] Speaker B: Well, I have to take biology, chemistry, maps, and physics. What you need is a good introductory course for non-science majors.\n[00:36 - 00:40] Speaker A: Yes, I'm really weak in maps, I did poorly in high school.\n[00:40 - 00:45] Speaker B: That's a problem. By the way, were you going to ask me something else earlier about the courses I'm taking?\n[00:45 - 00:50] Speaker A: Oh, right! I was going to ask if those courses you mentioned are particularly difficult.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or naturally builds upon the previous speaker's contribution.\n\n*   **[00:00-00:08]** Speaker A asks for advice, and Speaker B provides a direct answer with a clear rationale. This is perfectly relevant.\n*   **[00:09-00:14]** Speaker A explains the context of their question, acknowledging Speaker B's background, which logically follows from B's advice.\n*   **[00:14-00:19]** Speaker B's clarifying question (\"introductory or advanced?\") is highly relevant as it helps narrow down the advice needed.\n*   **[00:20-00:27]** Speaker A directly answers the clarifying question and re-affirms their need for an introductory course, maintaining topic coherence.\n*   **[00:28-00:35]** Speaker B lists their own required courses, then reiterates Speaker A's need for an introductory non-science major course. While the initial part of B's statement (listing their courses) is a slight deviation in focus, it serves to establish B's background and implicitly contrast it with A's situation, making the subsequent advice for A relevant.\n*   **[00:36-00:40]** Speaker A's comment about being \"weak in maps\" is a natural, albeit brief, digression sparked by B mentioning \"maps\" in their list. It's a personal detail that isn't entirely out of place in a conversation about course choices.\n*   **[00:40-00:45]** Speaker B acknowledges A's comment and then skillfully redirects the conversation back to a previous point where A was interrupted, showing good conversational memory and topic management. This is very relevant and helps maintain flow.\n*   **[00:45-00:50]** Speaker A picks up on B's prompt and asks the question they intended, demonstrating perfect coherence and relevance.\n\nOverall, the conversation flows logically, and speakers remain highly engaged with the topic, with only very minor, natural digressions quickly brought back to the main point.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The gaps are either 0 seconds or 1 second, which are natural and contribute to a smooth conversational rhythm.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one instance where Speaker B says, \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating a brief overlap. The timestamps show Speaker B starting at 00:14, the same time Speaker A finishes at 00:14. This is a very brief or zero-second overlap if B started exactly as A finished, or a very minor one. The prompt explicitly states that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this instance fits that description. It is acknowledged by Speaker B, making it even more natural and less disruptive. There are no \"extended overlaps.\"\n\nThe conversation feels natural and responsive, with appropriate turn-taking and minimal disfluencies.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--13",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi, Tony. You look unhappy. What's wrong?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Oh, Steven, I made a big mistake.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker A: What happened?\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: I really wish I hadn't — I\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A: Wait, did this mistake affect anyone else? I mean, is anyone else involved?\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker B: No, it's just me. But I got caught cheating. I feel so ashamed. The teacher saw me and told me I failed.\n[00:21 - 00:22] Speaker A: What were you thinking?\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B: You know my father. If I fail, he'll kill me. I have to — figure\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: Wait, you failed? I thought you were just worried about getting caught. What did the teacher say exactly?\n[00:32 - 00:41] Speaker B: Yeah, I failed because of it. The teacher said I failed the exam, and I feel awful that I didn't study, and I cheated, and I got caught.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's questions consistently follow up on Speaker B's revelations, showing active listening and a clear progression of inquiry. For example, A asks \"What happened?\" after B mentions a \"big mistake.\" Later, A clarifies \"Wait, you failed?\" after B mentions it, showing an attempt to reconcile information and understand the full scope of the problem. Speaker B's responses are direct and informative, gradually revealing the full extent of the issue (cheating, getting caught, failing, and the father's potential reaction). There are no irrelevant tangents or contradictions. The topic remains focused on B's mistake and its consequences throughout the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are a couple of instances of overlaps, but they are brief and functional, contributing to the naturalness of the conversation rather than hindering it.\n- At [00:08 - 00:14], Speaker A interjects \"Wait, did this mistake affect anyone else?\" while Speaker B is still speaking [00:07 - 00:09] \"I really wish I hadn't — I\". This is a brief, anticipatory overlap, where A quickly seeks clarification on the impact of the mistake. It's a natural way for an engaged listener to probe for details.\n- At [00:26 - 00:32], Speaker A interjects \"Wait, you failed?\" at the very end of Speaker B's utterance [00:22 - 00:26] \"I have to — figure\". B's sentence trails off, and A immediately jumps in to clarify a crucial piece of information (\"you failed?\"), indicating active processing of the information. This is a common and natural feature of fluid, informal conversation.\nThere are no prolonged pauses. The short pause between [00:20] and [00:21] is negligible and natural. These brief overlaps and short pauses demonstrate a highly interactive and natural conversational flow, not prolonged or disruptive ones.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--471",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Employees in this company have to have a good command of English. Do you think you are proficient in both written and spoken English?\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: Yes, I think I am quite proficient in both written and spoken English.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: Well, then, please tell me about your English experience, particularly\n[00:15 - 00:25] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but before we dive into that, could you clarify what level of proficiency is expected here? Are we talking about business-level fluency or something more advanced?\n[00:25 - 00:35] Speaker A: Good question. We expect a business-level fluency, but advanced proficiency is definitely a plus. Now, about your English education, you were saying?\n[00:35 - 00:40] Speaker B: Right, I have been studying English since junior high school. And I majored in English in college.\n[00:40 - 00:43] Speaker A: I see, do you speak any other languages?\n[00:44 - 00:46] Speaker B: Yes, I speak a little French and Japanese.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance.\n- Speaker A initiates by asking about English proficiency, and Speaker B directly answers.\n- Speaker A then asks for details about English experience. Speaker B's interruption, \"Sorry to jump in, but before we dive into that, could you clarify what level of proficiency is expected here?\", is highly relevant. It's a proactive and logical question that seeks necessary clarification before providing a potentially misaligned answer, showing good conversational strategy and understanding of the context.\n- Speaker A answers the clarification question and re-prompts Speaker B, maintaining topic coherence.\n- Speaker B then provides the requested information about their English education.\n- Speaker A's follow-up question about other languages is a natural and relevant extension of the initial topic of language proficiency, especially in an interview-like setting.\n- Speaker B's final response is a direct answer.\nAll turns are logically consistent with the preceding conversation and maintain topic coherence throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good.\n- There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. Most turns follow immediately or with a very brief, natural pause.\n- There is one instance of an overlap: `[00:15 - 00:25] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but before we dive into that, could you clarify what level of proficiency is expected here?` This overlaps with `[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: Well, then, please tell me about your English experience, particularly`. The overlap is from 0:15 to 0:16 (1 second). This is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Sorry to jump in\"), indicating an awareness of the interruption. As per the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this specific instance serves a functional purpose (seeking clarification) rather than being disruptive. It does not appear to be a prolonged or harmful overlap.\n- The turns generally flow well, indicating a natural conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--138599",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Wow, that looks really good! What is it?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: It's a dish from Thailand. It's called pad Thai.\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: That sounds amazing! I've never had Thai food before. I'm excited to try something\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker B: Oh, if it's your first time, I should mention that pad Thai can be a bit spicy. Are you okay with spicy food?\n[00:18 - 00:27] Speaker A: Yes, I can handle some spice! I'm sure I'll love it. The flavors are really unique and different from anything you've probably had before like the\n[00:26 - 00:34] Speaker B: Speaking of unique flavors, do you know what ingredients are in this dish? It might be helpful to know in case you want to try making it at home.\n[00:34 - 00:40] Speaker A: I didn't know that! I'll definitely have to look up the recipe. Thanks for introducing it to me.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the conversation organically.\n*   Speaker A's initial question about the food is directly answered by Speaker B.\n*   Speaker A expresses enthusiasm and mentions never having Thai food, which Speaker B picks up on to offer a relevant warning about spiciness and ask a clarifying question.\n*   Speaker A directly answers the question about spice and then elaborates on the flavors, which serves as a natural lead-in.\n*   Speaker B uses \"Speaking of unique flavors\" to smoothly transition to discussing ingredients and the possibility of making the dish at home, which is a coherent next step in the topic of food appreciation.\n*   Speaker A responds to this new information and expresses intent to look up the recipe, concluding the interaction logically.\nThe topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on the dish, its characteristics, and the experience of trying/making it. There are no sudden topic shifts or irrelevant remarks.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent fluency.\n*   **Extended overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps identified ([00:12 - 00:13] and [00:26 - 00:27]). These are very short (1 second each) and are typical of natural, enthusiastic conversation where one speaker might anticipate or briefly interject as the other finishes their thought. They are not prolonged or disruptive, falling into the \"brief overlaps are acceptable\" category.\n*   **Long pauses:** There are no long or awkward pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and smooth (e.g., a 1-second gap between [00:06] and [00:07], and seamless transitions for the overlaps). This indicates a natural and dynamic conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--464",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hello! How are you doing?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: I am doing well, how are you doing?\n[00:04 - 00:11] Speaker A: I'm doing really well! I just ate a mango, and I have some nice strawberries for later! What's your favorite fruit?\n[00:11 - 00:12] Speaker B: I love eating apples! What's your [interrupt]\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I just remembered—do you prefer a specific type of apple, like Granny Smith or Fuji?\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: I usually go for Fuji apples. They are sweet and crisp. But you were about to ask me something?\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: Yes, I was going to ask about your favorite fruit. Mine is probably mango. I have one right next to me as we speak.\n[00:32 - 00:35] Speaker B: I have never tried mango before. What do you think of its taste\n[00:34 - 00:42] Speaker A: Mangoes are amazing! But I'm curious, have you never tried them because they are hard to find where you live?\n[00:42 - 00:47] Speaker B: Actually, they are available, but I just never got around to trying them. So, what do you think of mango?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good response relevance and logical consistency. Speakers generally stay on topic, and when slight deviations occur (e.g., Speaker A's curiosity about why Speaker B hasn't tried mangoes), they are still closely related to the main topic of fruit. Speaker B also demonstrates good memory and topic coherence by bringing the conversation back to the original question after Speaker A's interruption (\"But you were about to ask me something?\"). The turns are relevant to the preceding statements, maintaining a coherent flow throughout the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency has a significant issue.\nAt [00:11 - 00:12], Speaker B begins to ask a question, and Speaker A immediately cuts them off and speaks over them for a prolonged period ([00:11 - 00:18]). This 7-second extended overlap is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker A (\"Sorry to jump in\"), indicating it was an interruption. This is a clear instance of a prolonged overlapping turn which is stated to be harmful.\nThere is a minor overlap at [00:34 - 00:42] where Speaker A starts speaking at 00:34 while Speaker B's turn ends at 00:35. While shorter, it still contributes to a less natural flow.\nThe significant and prolonged interruption by Speaker A severely impacts the interactional fluency, making it less natural and appropriate. There are no explicit long pauses marked in the transcript.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--71966",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Wow, that was close! I thought I was going to fall for a moment\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Are you okay? It looked like you were really struggling there for a minute.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker A: I'm fine, just a little shaken up. That was really scary!\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker B: I can imagine. It's a good thing you were able to hold on.\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker A: Yeah, I was really lucky. I don't know what would have happened if I had lost my\n[00:18 - 00:22] Speaker B: If you had fallen, it could have been really serious. We're just glad you're safe.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate excellent relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement.\n- Speaker B's immediate \"Are you okay?\" after A's \"I thought I was going to fall\" is a logical and empathetic response.\n- Speaker A's \"I'm fine, just a little shaken up\" directly answers B's question.\n- Speaker B's \"I can imagine. It's a good thing you were able to hold on\" acknowledges A's feeling and provides comfort/relief.\n- Speaker A's \"Yeah, I was really lucky...\" continues the theme of the near-miss and its potential severity.\n- Speaker B's final turn, \"If you had fallen, it could have been really serious. We're just glad you're safe,\" not only completes Speaker A's unfinished thought (demonstrating strong coherence and active listening) but also reinforces the topic of safety and relief.\nThe topic remains consistently focused on the near-fall incident, the emotional impact, and the relief of safety. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high.\nThere are no long pauses; the pauses between turns are consistently around 1 second, which is natural and contributes to a smooth conversational flow.\nThere are two brief overlaps:\n1.  **[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B starts while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence.** This is a 2-second overlap. While technically an overlap, it sounds like Speaker B is reacting quickly and empathetically, eager to check on Speaker A. It doesn't disrupt the flow or make either speaker difficult to understand. It feels like a natural, overlapping interjection common in engaged conversation.\n2.  **[00:18 - 00:19] Speaker B starts while Speaker A is finishing their sentence.** This is a 1-second overlap. Similar to the first, Speaker B is anticipating and completing Speaker A's thought, which enhances the feeling of connection and responsiveness rather than being a disruptive \"overlapping turn.\"\n\nGiven the prompt's definition that \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful,\" these overlaps fall into the \"brief and acceptable\" category. They indicate an active and engaged conversation rather than a struggle for turn-taking. The overall impression is one of natural, dynamic interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--434",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Amy, what was your first job?\n[00:02 - 00:11] Speaker B: Well, when I graduated from the college in 1998, I worked first as a secretary to the General Manager. That lasted for two years. Then I was promoted to a\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker A: Promoted? That's great! What were your new responsibilities?\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker B: Oh, I was promoted to Personnel Manager. I was responsible for all personnel matters.\n[00:20 - 00:21] Speaker A: Did you enjoy it?\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B: Well, the people were nice. I liked the people I worked with. But the job was poorly paid.\n[00:27 - 00:28] Speaker A: And how long did you stay there?\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker B: Oh, about a year. I left because I wanted to apply for a position in the Sales Department. That's where I work now.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct and logical answers to Speaker A's questions, detailing their career progression from their first job, through a promotion, to their current role. Speaker A's questions are also highly relevant, building naturally on Speaker B's previous statements (e.g., \"Promoted?\", \"Did you enjoy it?\", \"how long did you stay there?\"). The conversation maintains perfect topic coherence, focusing entirely on Speaker B's work history. There are no instances of irrelevant information, off-topic tangents, or illogical responses from either speaker.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap at [00:10 - 00:11] where Speaker A interjects \"Promoted?\" while Speaker B is still saying \"promoted to a\". This is a very natural and common conversational brief overlap, demonstrating active listening and engagement rather than being disruptive. It's not an \"extended overlap\" as per the criteria.\n*   **Pauses:** There are small pauses (approximately 1 second) between turns, for instance, between [00:21] and [00:22], [00:26] and [00:27], and [00:28] and [00:29]. These are typical, natural conversational pauses that allow for processing and formulating a response, and are not \"long pauses\" that would impede fluency.\nOverall, the pacing feels natural and conversational, without any harmful disruptions from prolonged overlaps or long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--24",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Tom, I've got good news for you.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: What is it?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: Haven't you heard that your novel has won The Nobel Prize in\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: Wait, are you serious? Which novel are you talking about?\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker A: Yes, I'm serious! Your latest one, the one you've been working on for the past two years. Anyway, you've won The Nobel Prize!\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker B: Really? I can't believe it. It's like a dream come true. I never expected that I would win The Nobel Prize!\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker A: You did a good job. I'm extremely proud of you.\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker B: Thanks for the compliment. By the way, you mentioned \"The Nobel\" earlier—did you mean The Nobel Prize in Literature?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate high logical consistency and topic coherence.\n*   Speaker B's initial question \"What is it?\" is a direct and logical follow-up to Speaker A's \"I've got good news for you.\"\n*   Speaker B's reaction (\"Wait, are you serious? Which novel are you talking about?\") after hearing about the Nobel Prize is a very natural and relevant expression of disbelief and request for clarification.\n*   Speaker A's subsequent clarification and reiteration of the news are perfectly on point.\n*   Speaker B's joyous reaction (\"Really? I can't believe it. It's like a dream come true.\") maintains the emotional and topical coherence.\n*   Speaker A's congratulatory remarks are relevant to the good news.\n*   Crucially, Speaker B's final question, \"By the way, you mentioned 'The Nobel' earlier—did you mean The Nobel Prize in Literature?\", demonstrates excellent logical consistency. It picks up on Speaker A's earlier truncated phrase (\"The Nobel Prize in\") and seeks a specific clarification, showing active listening and coherence in the conversation's progression. The topic remains entirely focused on the Nobel Prize.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There are no extended overlaps indicated by the timestamps. Turn transitions are either immediate (e.g., Speaker A ends at 00:06, Speaker B starts at 00:06; Speaker A ends at 00:17, Speaker B starts at 00:17; Speaker A ends at 00:27, Speaker B starts at 00:27) or involve very brief 1-second gaps (e.g., 00:01-00:02, 00:08-00:09, 00:23-00:24). These brief or immediate transitions are natural and indicative of a smooth, back-and-forth conversation, not harmful overlaps.\n*   **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The maximum pause duration observed is 1 second, which is well within acceptable limits for natural conversation. This indicates a consistent and fluid exchange without awkward silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--474",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I really enjoyed the last episode of Star Wars! It reminded me a lot of my favorite character.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker B: Oh, which one is that?\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker A: It's tough to pick, but I think it's Yoda.\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker B: Oh, cool! I liked that one too.\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker A: Are you planning to see the new one?\n[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker B: Definitely! I've got my tickets booked already.\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker A: Me too! I was so happy to hear that Luke would have a bigger role this time. I don't think he had enough screen\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but do you know if there are any special screenings or events for the new release?\n[00:30 - 00:38] Speaker A: I haven't checked that yet, but that's a good idea. By the way, you mentioned Luke's role. He did have a bigger role, but he didn't really get the\n[00:38 - 00:44] Speaker B: I see what you mean. I hope they give him more depth this time. Do you think the storyline will focus more on his backstory or something else?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and topic coherence. Speakers consistently respond logically to previous turns. For instance, Speaker B asks for clarification when Speaker A mentions a favorite character, and Speaker A provides it. Later, Speaker A smoothly transitions to asking about the new movie, and Speaker B responds directly.\n\nThere's a slight shift in topic coherence at [00:25] when Speaker B interrupts Speaker A to ask about special screenings. However, this shift is acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Sorry to jump in\") and Speaker A addresses the new question before attempting to bring the conversation back to the previous topic (Luke's role). Speaker B then re-engages with the Luke topic, demonstrating an ability to manage the conversational flow and return to previous points, indicating good overall topic management rather than a complete derailment. The dialogue remains focused on Star Wars throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally very good. There are no long pauses between turns; responses are prompt and natural.\n\nThe primary point to evaluate for fluency is the overlap at [00:25 - 00:29]. Speaker B initiates their turn while Speaker A is still speaking, cutting off Speaker A's sentence. This is an explicit overlap, confirmed by Speaker B's \"Sorry to jump in.\" However, the evaluation criteria state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This particular overlap appears to be brief and, crucially, is immediately acknowledged by Speaker B, which mitigates its impact on fluency. The conversation flows smoothly afterwards, with Speaker A addressing the interruption and then attempting to return to the previous topic, and Speaker B subsequently re-engaging. This indicates that it was not a \"prolonged\" or significantly disruptive overlapping turn.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--439",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hello, so how are we feeling today?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Things are going well for me, doctor.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: Am I correct in thinking that you are here for your annual physical?\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Yes, I am applying for new health insurance, and I need a physical examination to make sure\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: Oh, speaking of health insurance, do you know if they require any specific tests beyond the usual ones?\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker B: I'm not sure if they need anything extra, but I just mentioned that I need a physical to qualify for it.\n[00:26 - 00:33] Speaker A: Got it. Your basic physical exam will include lungs, heart, blood levels, and eyes, ears, and nose.\n[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker B: I've been having a little trouble breathing. Would you look into that, please?\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker A: We can do an allergy test, and later I can send you for an asthma evaluation to\n[00:41 - 00:46] Speaker B: Actually, I wanted to ask—could this breathing issue be related to stress or anxiety?\n[00:47 - 00:55] Speaker A: It's possible, but I was saying we could also do an asthma test to rule out any respiratory conditions. Would you like to explore that too?\n[00:55 - 01:00] Speaker B: Yes, I would appreciate it. When you give me a blood test, what are you looking for?\n[01:00 - 01:04] Speaker A: I am going to check your cholesterol, blood sugar, and white blood cell count.\n[01:05 - 01:09] Speaker B: I am expecting the tests to go well. I have been taking good care of myself.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. All turns are logically consistent and maintain strong topic coherence. Speaker A consistently addresses Speaker B's concerns and questions directly, providing relevant information about the physical exam and potential tests. For instance, when Speaker B expresses \"trouble breathing,\" Speaker A immediately suggests an allergy test and asthma evaluation. Even when Speaker B interjects with a new hypothesis (\"stress or anxiety\"), Speaker A acknowledges it (\"It's possible\") while still steering back to medical evaluations (\"we could also do an asthma test\"). Speaker B's questions are also highly relevant, seeking clarification on the tests (e.g., \"what are you looking for?\" in a blood test) or introducing new medical details relevant to the visit. There are no instances of misunderstandings, off-topic discussions, or irrelevant responses. The conversation flows naturally from general purpose to specific symptoms and tests.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns that would disrupt the flow of conversation. The pauses identified (e.g., 1 second between turns at [00:46-00:47], [01:04-01:05]) are brief and natural, allowing for processing and turn-taking without feeling awkward.\nRegarding overlaps, there are a few brief ones:\n- At [00:13-00:14], Speaker A starts speaking just as Speaker B finishes, which is a common and natural occurrence in fluid conversation, indicating active listening and a quick response to a keyword (\"health insurance\").\n- At [00:33-00:33], Speaker B starts speaking almost simultaneously with Speaker A finishing, which is a very brief and natural interjection.\n- At [00:41-00:42], Speaker B briefly cuts off Speaker A. This is also a natural conversational dynamic, often indicating eagerness to ask a question or add a thought.\nNone of these overlaps are extended or prolonged; they are brief and contribute to the natural, dynamic feel of the conversation rather than hindering it. The dialogue feels spontaneous and unscripted due to these natural interactional cues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--129",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Oh, my niece will love her! How much for this Barbie?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but I just remembered—do you need gift wrapping for this? We offer it for free.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: Oh, that's nice, but I was asking about the price. How much for her?\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: Barbie is our best seller. She's only $29.95.\n[00:17 - 00:18] Speaker A: That's great. I'll take her.\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B: Your niece will love this. Anything else?\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker A: Thank you, but no. This will do it for now.\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker B: With the tax, your total is $32.42. Would you like to pay with\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker A: Before you finish, I'll pay cash, thank you.\n[00:32 - 00:33] Speaker B: Thank you for shopping here.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains good topic coherence, revolving around the purchase of a Barbie.\n- Speaker A initiates by asking for the price.\n- Speaker B's first response about gift wrapping is a slight deviation from the direct question. While it's a sales-oriented offer, it causes Speaker A to re-state their original query, indicating a momentary lapse in direct logical consistency from B's side.\n- Speaker B then correctly provides the price and continues the transaction process (confirming purchase, asking about other items, stating total, asking for payment method).\n- Speaker A's interruption (\"Before you finish, I'll pay cash\") is relevant to the transaction and provides the necessary information before Speaker B completes their sentence, maintaining logical flow.\nDespite the initial slight misstep from Speaker B, the dialogue quickly re-establishes direct relevance, and the overall interaction is logically consistent with the goal of a sales transaction. There are no significant issues regarding topic coherence or logical consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - At [00:02 - 00:03], Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which indicates self-awareness and manages the overlap naturally. This is a brief, acceptable overlap.\n    - At [00:28 - 00:29], Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still speaking. Speaker A also explicitly acknowledges this with \"Before you finish,\" which again shows awareness and manages the turn-taking effectively. This is also a brief, acceptable overlap.\n- All pauses between turns are brief (approximately 1 second), which are natural and acceptable in conversation.\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected, indicating a very natural and fluent exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--72359",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi, sweetie! Are you excited for your first day of school tomorrow?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Yeah, I am! I can't wait to see all my friends again and learn new things, especially\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A: Speaking of friends, have you thought about who you'll sit with at lunch? I know it can be a little nerve-wracking on the first day.\n[00:15 - 00:31] Speaker B: Oh, I hadn't thought about that yet, but I'm sure I'll find someone. I'm also really excited to learn more about science and history this year. We only scratched the surface last year, so I'm hoping to go deeper into those subjects. And of course, recess and lunchtime are always fun.\n[00:31 - 00:41] Speaker A: Yes, definitely! Learning is important, but it's also important to take breaks and have fun with your friends. Do you have any goals for this year? Anything you want to achieve?\n[00:42 - 00:50] Speaker B: Hmm...I guess one goal would be to get better at math. It's not my favorite subject, but I know it's important. And maybe try out for the soccer team? We'll see...\n[00:51 - 01:00] Speaker A: That sounds like a great goal! I know you can do it. And even if you don't make the soccer team, it's always good to try new activities or\n[00:58 - 01:04] Speaker B: Actually, I was thinking—what if I don't like soccer as much as I think? Should I try something else instead?\n[01:04 - 01:14] Speaker A: That's a good point. It's okay to explore different activities until you find what you really enjoy. Whether it's soccer or something else, I'm proud of you no matter what, sweetie.\n[01:15 - 01:16] Speaker B: Thanks, mom!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A consistently brings the conversation back to school, friends, and personal goals related to the upcoming school year, acting as a guiding parent. Speaker B, the child, provides direct answers to Speaker A's questions and naturally expands on their thoughts and interests (e.g., mentioning science and history after being asked about lunch, or expressing doubts about soccer). The transitions between topics, such as from general excitement to lunch, then to academic subjects, and finally to personal goals, flow organically within the context of preparing for the first day of school. There are no irrelevant tangents or abrupt topic shifts. The conversation feels like a genuine exchange between a parent and child.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are a couple of brief overlaps detected:\n- At `[00:08 - 00:09]`, Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This is a very common and natural occurrence in conversational speech, where one speaker anticipates the end of another's turn or interjects based on what they've already heard. Speaker A picks up on Speaker B's mention of \"friends\" seamlessly.\n- At `[00:58 - 01:00]`, Speaker B interjects with a new thought while Speaker A is still speaking. Again, this is a natural form of turn-taking, indicating active engagement rather than a breakdown in communication. Speaker B is clearly reacting to Speaker A's encouragement to try new activities.\nThese overlaps are brief and do not hinder comprehension or disrupt the flow of the conversation. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected between turns, indicating smooth and natural pacing.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--522",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi, do you have a display model of the new phone?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Sure, it's right over here.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: How much does this model cost? I'm\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but are you looking for any specific features in the phone?\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker A: Yes, I need a good camera and high storage capacity. But I was asking about the price of this model.\n[00:17 - 00:20] Speaker B: Oh, just give us the size and we'll give you a price.\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker A: Let me look at it and I'll be checking the\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: Actually, while you check it out, I should mention there's a discount on accessories if you buy today.\n[00:28 - 00:30] Speaker A: That's good to know. I'll be right back.\n[00:31 - 00:31] Speaker B: Take your time.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker B demonstrates significant issues in response relevance.\n1.  At `[00:05 - 00:08]`, Speaker A asks directly about the cost of the display model. Speaker B, at `[00:07 - 00:10]`, interrupts to ask about specific features. While this *could* be a sales tactic, it deflects the immediate, direct question about the *specific model's* price.\n2.  After Speaker A re-emphasizes their price inquiry at `[00:11 - 00:17]`, Speaker B at `[00:17 - 00:20]` still does not provide the price. Instead, they ask Speaker A to \"give us the size,\" which is unhelpful given Speaker A is looking at a *display model* whose size should be readily apparent or easily determined by the salesperson. This again delays and complicates the direct answer to a simple price question.\n3.  Most notably, at `[00:21 - 00:27]`, while Speaker A is seemingly trying to comply with Speaker B's previous request (to find the size), Speaker B completely changes the topic and pitches a discount on accessories. This is highly irrelevant to Speaker A's current action and original query, indicating a lack of focus on the customer's stated needs and a strong push for a sale.\n\nOverall, Speaker B consistently fails to directly address Speaker A's core question (the price of the displayed phone model), instead redirecting, delaying, or introducing irrelevant sales pitches. This significantly harms the logical consistency and topic coherence of the conversation from the customer's perspective.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe interaction shows some issues with interactional fluency, specifically regarding overlaps.\n1.  At `[00:07 - 00:10]`, Speaker B explicitly says \"Sorry to interrupt\" as they overlap with Speaker A's \"I'm\" at `[00:05 - 00:08]`. This is a brief overlap (approximately 1 second), but it is an interruption.\n2.  At `[00:21 - 00:27]`, Speaker B begins speaking (\"Actually, while you check it out...\") while Speaker A is still speaking (\"...checking the\") at `[00:20 - 00:22]`. This is another brief overlap (approximately 1 second) where Speaker B cuts off Speaker A.\n\nWhile neither of these overlaps is \"extended\" (i.e., lasting multiple seconds and making speech unintelligible), the pattern of Speaker B interrupting Speaker A twice within a short dialogue indicates a slight breakdown in natural turn-taking and active listening. There are no noticeable long pauses between turns. The brief, repeated interruptions, especially combined with the relevance issues, make the flow less natural and polite.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--476",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi, how's it going?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not too bad, how about you?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm doing fine. Have you seen all of the movies on your watchlist?\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: I have, but not all of them are as good\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker A: Oh, what movies have you seen recently?\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: I saw Logan the other day. I also really liked Blade Runner 2049, especially\n[00:17 - 00:25] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but Blade Runner 2049 has such a unique visual style. What did you think about its cinematography?\n[00:25 - 00:32] Speaker B: The cinematography was stunning! I was actually going to mention that. By the way, you were saying something about Oscar contenders earlier?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- The initial greeting and response are standard and relevant.\n- Speaker A's question about the watchlist logically follows Speaker B's \"not too bad\" and opens up a topic.\n- Speaker B's response about not all movies being good is directly relevant to the watchlist question.\n- Speaker A's follow-up (\"Oh, what movies have you seen recently?\") is a natural progression to get specifics after Speaker B's general comment.\n- Speaker B provides relevant movie titles.\n- Speaker A's interruption (\"Sorry to jump in, but Blade Runner 2049 has such a unique visual style. What did you think about its cinematography?\") is highly relevant, picking up on a specific movie mentioned by Speaker B and delving deeper into a characteristic of it. The apology acknowledges the interruption and maintains politeness.\n- Speaker B's initial response (\"The cinematography was stunning! I was actually going to mention that.\") is perfectly relevant to Speaker A's question and shows alignment.\n- The shift in Speaker B's final turn (\"By the way, you were saying something about Oscar contenders earlier?\") is the only slightly less coherent part. While still movie-related, it introduces a topic not explicitly mentioned in the *recorded* dialogue. However, it's framed as a reminder of an \"earlier\" conversation, which implies a pre-existing context or a smooth attempt to pivot back to a previous discussion point. This doesn't break coherence significantly as it stays within the general domain of film and could indicate an active listener trying to circle back to another interesting point. Overall, the flow is very natural and responses are highly relevant.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, reflecting a natural conversation.\n- **Extended overlaps:** There are no extended or harmful overlaps.\n    - At [00:10 - 00:12], Speaker A begins speaking at 00:10 while Speaker B is still finishing at 00:11. This is a very brief 1-second overlap, indicative of eager turn-taking or a slight anticipation of the end of the other speaker's turn, which is common and natural in fluent conversation.\n    - At [00:17 - 00:25], Speaker A immediately jumps in at 00:17 as Speaker B finishes their thought. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the brief interruption polite and natural rather than disruptive. This demonstrates high interactional awareness.\n- **Long pauses:** There are no long or awkward pauses.\n    - Pauses between turns are consistently 1 second or less (e.g., 00:03-00:04, 00:12-00:13, 00:17-00:17, 00:25-00:25). These short pauses are optimal for natural turn-taking, allowing for processing and formulating a response without creating awkward silence.\nThe dialogue flows smoothly with appropriate timing and natural conversational dynamics.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--112031",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's that thing on your wrist?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Oh, this? It's called a watch.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker A: What does it do?\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Well, it tells time. You see, there are these two hands; the big one is the hour hand and the smaller one is the minute hand. They both move around the face of the watch. The hour hand goes around once every 12 hours, and the minute hand goes around once every 60 minutes. So, if it's currently 9 o'clock, then the big hand will be pointing to 9 and the small hand will be pointing to 12, which\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker A: Wait, so does it work the same way for every watch? Or are there different types?\n[00:17 - 00:28] Speaker B: Most watches work similarly, but there are digital ones too that show the time with numbers instead of hands. But I was going to say the small hand points to 0 when it's exactly 9 o'clock. Does that make sense?\n[00:29 - 00:33] Speaker A: Yeah, I think so. But how does it know what time it is?\n[00:33 - 00:47] Speaker B: There's a little ticking sound inside the watch that keeps track of time. Each tick represents one second passing by. So, if you count out 60 ticks, that means a minute has passed; and if you count out 3600 ticks, that means an hour\n[00:46 - 00:50] Speaker A: Oh, so that's why it makes that ticking sound! I always wondered about that.\n[00:51 - 00:55] Speaker B: Exactly! And if you count 3600 ticks, that means an hour has passed.\n[00:56 - 00:59] Speaker A: That's amazing! I've never seen anything like it before.\n[01:00 - 01:01] Speaker B: Yeah, it's pretty cool.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's questions are direct and Speaker B provides clear, detailed, and relevant answers. The conversation flows naturally from identifying the object, to explaining its function, then its different types, and finally its internal mechanism. Each turn logically builds on the previous one. For example, Speaker A's \"What does it do?\" logically follows \"It's called a watch.\" And \"But how does it know what time it is?\" is a natural progression after learning how it tells time. Speaker B's attempt to complete the interrupted explanation at [00:17 - 00:28] and again at [00:51 - 00:55] shows excellent topic coherence and conversational memory, ensuring previous points are not lost. The content regarding how a watch works (hands, ticking sound, seconds/minutes/hours) is accurate and consistent with the topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses between turns; the conversation progresses smoothly and naturally. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1. At [00:11 - 00:17], Speaker A interjects \"Wait, so does it work...\" while Speaker B is still finishing an explanation. This overlap is approximately 1 second.\n2. At [00:46 - 00:50], Speaker A exclaims \"Oh, so that's why it makes that ticking sound!\" while Speaker B is still mid-sentence. This overlap is also approximately 1 second.\nBoth overlaps are very brief and appear to be natural interjections, indicating engagement and immediate follow-up questions or realizations, rather than disruptive prolonged talking over each other. The prompt states that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these examples fall within that acceptable range. They do not impede comprehension or the flow of the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--695",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, how are you?\n[00:01 - 00:08] Speaker B: I'm great, thanks! I have this new project on my plate, but otherwise things are going pretty smoothly. It's\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but what's this new project about? Is it something exciting?\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: Yeah, it's quite interesting. It's a marketing campaign for a new product. By the way, what's your pet's name?\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker A: His name is Keith, but I think it's time to change it. I feel like it doesn't suit him anymore.\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker B: I really love dogs, too. I have a Boston terrier that I've had for a while now.\n[00:31 - 00:33] Speaker A: Do you have a picture of your dog?\n[00:33 - 00:34] Speaker B: Sure, here you go!\n[00:35 - 00:36] Speaker A: That is adorable!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a typical greeting and a follow-up question, which are logically consistent. Speaker B's initial response about the project is relevant. Speaker A then appropriately asks for more details about the project. However, the logical consistency and topic coherence significantly break down in Speaker B's turn at [00:13 - 00:19]. After answering about the marketing campaign, Speaker B abruptly shifts the topic to \"what's your pet's name?\" without any prior mention or logical segue. This is a complete and unprompted topic change. While Speaker A adapts and responds to the new topic, Speaker B's initial shift demonstrates a significant issue in maintaining consistent topic coherence. Subsequent turns are relevant to the *new* topic, but the initial unprovoked shift is a major flaw.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are two instances of brief overlaps. At [00:07 - 00:12], Speaker A overlaps Speaker B, and A acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the overlap feel natural and managed rather than disruptive. At [00:19 - 00:25], Speaker A slightly overlaps Speaker B; this appears to be a minor overlap at the end of B's turn, and A is quickly responding to the new question. Neither of these overlaps is extended or prolonged. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Overall, the interactional fluency is good, with brief, acceptable overlaps and no detrimental pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--437",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I know my father has talked about going to Jamaica. Is it a good place to visit?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: It is really nice! I have heard great things about the culture,\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but what about the safety there? Is it a safe place to travel?\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker B: Yes, generally it is safe, but like any place, it's important to stay aware of your surroundings. Are there lots of beaches?\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker A: Definitely! The weather is very nice. It gets a lot of rain, but for the most part it is sunny and\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker B: Speaking of weather, do you know the best time of year to visit to avoid the rain?\n[00:31 - 00:38] Speaker A: The best time to visit is usually from November to mid-December. Sounds great! Thanks for all the information.\n[00:39 - 00:40] Speaker B: You're welcome. Have fun!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates with a general question about Jamaica, and Speaker B provides a direct response. Speaker A then logically introduces a common concern for travelers (safety), which Speaker B addresses directly and comprehensively. Speaker B then pivots to another relevant aspect of a travel destination (beaches), and Speaker A responds. Speaker A's subsequent mention of weather, though brief and cut off, is immediately picked up by Speaker B, who asks a logical follow-up question about the best time to visit. Speaker A answers this question and concludes the conversation appropriately. All turns are relevant to the main topic of visiting Jamaica, and the conversation flows naturally between sub-topics.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are a few brief overlaps (e.g., Speaker B starting at 0:05 while Speaker A finishes at 0:04; Speaker A interrupting Speaker B at 0:08; Speaker B interrupting Speaker A at 0:27). However, these are short (1-2 seconds), common in natural conversation, and do not constitute \"extended overlaps.\" In one instance (0:08), Speaker A explicitly apologizes for the interruption, indicating awareness and managing the flow. In another (0:27), Speaker B uses a conversational bridge (\"Speaking of weather\") to seamlessly transition. There are no long pauses between turns. The pacing feels natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--39882",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey Mali. How's it going?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Oh, Tanesha. I'm doing well, thanks for asking. How are you?\n[00:06 - 00:14] Speaker A: Doing great! You know, I was just thinking about how popular you are and how everyone loves you. It's really amazing to\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but I just have to say, you're giving me way too much credit. I really don't see myself that way.\n[00:19 - 00:31] Speaker A: Are you kidding? Everyone loves you! Even your rivals can't help but admire you. You're just so perfect and talented and likeable. It's really no wonder why everyone wants to be your friend.\n[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker B: Well, thank you, Tanesha. That means a lot coming from you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial response is a standard, appropriate reply to a greeting and question. Speaker A then shifts the topic to Speaker B's popularity, which, while effusive, is a coherent conversational turn. Speaker B's interruption (\"Sorry to cut in\") is a direct and logically consistent response to the excessive praise, attempting to deflect it. Speaker A then doubles down on the praise, which is a consistent reaction to Speaker B's deflection. Finally, Speaker B's concluding remark accepts the persistent praise, maintaining topic coherence. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or logical inconsistencies; the conversation flows naturally from one turn to the next within the established topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth conversational flow. There is one instance of an overlap: `[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but I just have to say...` This overlap occurs while Speaker A is still speaking at `[00:06 - 00:14]`. This is a brief overlap (approximately 1 second), and importantly, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges it by saying \"Sorry to cut in.\" This indicates awareness and control over the conversational turn-taking, making the overlap natural and intentional within the context of an eager interjection. As per the instructions, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this falls into that category, enhancing rather than hindering fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--360",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Would you like to come out with me tonight?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Sorry, I can't.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: Tomorrow night, then?\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: I'd like to. But I'm afraid I might have\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker A: Oh, is something coming up tomorrow?\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Yes, I have some prior commitments. I was wondering if you'd like to go to the theatre instead?\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker A: That sounds great.\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B: Ok. How about giving me a ring, then?\n[00:19 - 00:20] Speaker A: No. I'd better not.\n[00:21 - 00:22] Speaker B: Why not?\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker A: Because I don't think my husband would like me getting\n[00:24 - 00:33] Speaker B: Oh, I see. I completely understand. But just to clarify, when you mentioned your husband earlier, did you mean he wouldn't like you going out or receiving a call from me?\n[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker A: He wouldn't like me receiving a call. Thank you for inviting me anyway.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout. Each turn builds naturally on the previous one.\n- Speaker B's initial refusal and subsequent alternative suggestion (\"go to the theatre instead?\") are directly relevant to Speaker A's invitations.\n- Speaker A's acceptance (\"That sounds great.\") is a direct response to the alternative.\n- Speaker B's follow-up (\"How about giving me a ring, then?\") is a logical next step for arranging the proposed activity.\n- Speaker A's refusal (\"No. I'd better not.\") and subsequent explanation are relevant to Speaker B's request.\n- Speaker B's clarification (\"did you mean he wouldn't like you going out or receiving a call from me?\") is crucial and highly relevant, addressing the ambiguity of Speaker A's incomplete statement (\"my husband would like me getting\"). This demonstrates active listening and a desire for clear communication.\n- Speaker A's final response (\"He wouldn't like me receiving a call. Thank you for inviting me anyway.\") directly answers the clarification and provides a polite closing.\nThe topic remains coherent, moving from initial invitations to refusal, alternative plans, and finally to a specific reason for declining further interaction, with a clear attempt to resolve ambiguity.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the dialogue flows at a natural pace. For instance, the 1-second pause between A's \"not.\" and B's \"Why not?\" is perfectly natural.\n- There is one instance of an overlap: Speaker B starts speaking at [00:24] while Speaker A is still speaking until [00:25]. This results in a 1-second overlap. However, Speaker A's sentence (\"Because I don't think my husband would like me getting\") trails off, and Speaker B's immediate entry at this point feels like a natural, brief interruption for clarification rather than a disruptive, prolonged overlap. It doesn't seem to hinder comprehension or the natural flow of conversation, especially given the immediate need for clarification on Speaker A's incomplete thought. The prompt states \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this overlap falls into the \"brief\" category and serves a functional purpose (clarification).\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--75630",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: \"Mom, I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to knock over\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: \"It's okay, baby. Let me see your cuts. Are you hurt anywhere else?\"\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker A: \"I'm really sorry. I should have been more careful.\"\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: \"It's okay. These will heal. What's important is that you're alright.\"",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B's initial response (\"It's okay, baby. Let me see your cuts. Are you hurt anywhere else?\") directly addresses Speaker A's partial apology (\"I didn't mean to knock over\"), implying the apology is for an accident that also caused injury. This is a logical and empathetic reaction. Speaker A's subsequent apology (\"I'm really sorry. I should have been more careful.\") is a consistent follow-up to Speaker B's concern for their well-being. Finally, Speaker B's continued reassurance (\"It's okay. These will heal. What's important is that you're alright.\") logically responds to Speaker A's reiterated remorse, maintaining the topic of comfort and well-being after an accident. The conversation remains coherent and progresses naturally.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent fluency. There is a brief, one-second overlap between Speaker A's first turn ending and Speaker B's first turn beginning ([00:02 - 00:03]). This kind of overlap is very common and natural in empathetic or reassuring exchanges, where one speaker interjects slightly to offer comfort before the other has fully finished. It is not an \"extended overlap.\" The pauses between turns are minimal (e.g., one second between [00:05] and [00:06], and one second between [00:08] and [00:09]), contributing to a natural, responsive conversational flow. There are no long pauses or disruptive extended overlaps, indicating a smooth interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--65901",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, boss. Thanks for giving me this chance to work here.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: You're welcome, Holli. I'm glad to have you\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: Sorry, before you continue, I just wanted to ask—what exactly do you think I'll be doing here?\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: Well, mainly you'll be working the cash register and helping customers with their purchases.\n[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker A: That sounds great. I'm ready to start whenever\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: Before we jump in, I just want to make sure you're comfortable with handling cash and customer service. Are you?\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker A: Yes, I'm comfortable with that. Okay, let's get you set up at the register then.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining a clear and coherent conversation flow. Speaker A's initial question about job duties is a natural follow-up to being given a chance to work. Speaker B's explanation of duties is directly responsive. Speaker A's readiness is a logical reaction. Speaker B's subsequent question about comfort with specific tasks (cash handling, customer service) is a highly relevant and practical inquiry, building directly on the previously stated duties. Speaker A's confirmation and Speaker B's final instruction are also perfectly aligned. There are no irrelevant remarks, sudden topic shifts, or illogical responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1. `[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A:` starts during `[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B:`. This overlap is brief (approx. 1 second) and Speaker A explicitly acknowledges it (\"Sorry, before you continue\"), which is a natural conversational pattern for an interruption.\n2. `[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B:` starts during `[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker A:`. This overlap is also brief (approx. 1 second) and indicates natural turn-taking where the next speaker anticipates the end of the current speaker's utterance.\nBoth these overlaps fall under the \"brief overlaps... are acceptable\" category. There are no long pauses between turns; the longest gap is 1 second, which is a natural conversational pause. The conversation flows smoothly and naturally.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 4
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--52732",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: What do you think it means to be a good person?\n[00:02 - 00:10] Speaker B: I think being a good person means being honest, helpful, and kind. To me, this also includes being a good friend, family member, and being there\n[00:09 - 00:20] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but when you mention being a good friend, do you think that sometimes it's more about being there for someone when they need you the most, even if it's inconvenient?\n[00:21 - 00:30] Speaker B: Yes, absolutely. It's about showing up, even when it's hard. But I was also going to say that it's about being a good citizen, contributing to society in positive ways.\n[00:30 - 00:38] Speaker A: Yeah, I agree with you. I think those are all important qualities of a good person. But I also think there's more to it than that.\n[00:39 - 00:39] Speaker B: Like what?\n[00:40 - 00:53] Speaker A: Well, for me, being a good person also means trying to make the world a better place. Whether that's through volunteering, donating to charity, or just doing something nice for someone else – I think it all makes a difference.\n[00:53 - 01:01] Speaker B: That's true. I never thought of it that way before. But you're right – if we all try to do our part, we can make the world a better place one step at a time.\n[01:01 - 01:07] Speaker A: Exactly. So, in your opinion, what's the most important thing we can do to be good people?\n[01:08 - 01:17] Speaker B: I think it's important to always try to be our best selves. To never give up on ourselves or others, and to keep fighting for what's right – even when it's difficult or\n[01:16 - 01:24] Speaker A: Even when it feels like you're the only one fighting for it? That can be really tough, but it's also what makes it so meaningful, don't you think?\n[01:25 - 01:34] Speaker B: Yes, exactly. It's about perseverance and staying true to your values, even when it's challenging. Being a good person isn't always easy. But I think it's worth it – don't you?\n[01:35 - 01:36] Speaker A: Absolutely.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency. The speakers maintain topic coherence throughout the conversation, which revolves around the definition and implications of \"being a good person.\"\n\n*   Speaker A's initial question is directly addressed by Speaker B's definition.\n*   Speaker A's \"jump in\" at [00:09] is not only relevant but also builds upon Speaker B's preceding point about \"being a good friend,\" exploring a specific nuance. Speaker A even acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry to jump in\"), showing awareness and politeness.\n*   Speaker B's response at [00:21] directly addresses Speaker A's nuanced question, then naturally expands on their initial definition by adding \"being a good citizen.\"\n*   Speaker A's agreement at [00:30] and subsequent query \"But I also think there's more to it than that\" logically prompts Speaker B's \"Like what?\" This sets up a natural expansion of the topic.\n*   Speaker A's elaboration at [00:40] on \"making the world a better place\" introduces a new, yet entirely relevant, dimension to the concept of being a good person, which Speaker B acknowledges and integrates.\n*   The transition at [01:01] where Speaker A asks for the \"most important thing\" is a logical progression, seeking to synthesize the previous points.\n*   Speaker B's response at [01:08] about \"being our best selves\" and \"fighting for what's right\" is a relevant philosophical culmination.\n*   Speaker A's overlap at [01:16] is a highly empathetic and relevant interjection, completing Speaker B's thought and showing deep engagement with the topic.\n*   Speaker B's concluding remarks at [01:25] directly address Speaker A's point and reiterate the core theme.\n\nThere are no instances of responses going off-topic, contradicting previous statements, or being nonsensical. Each turn builds upon the previous one, fostering a coherent and logically flowing discussion.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses that disrupt the conversation flow. The pauses between turns are consistently brief (1 second or less), which is natural and indicative of a dynamic conversation.\n\nThere are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  `[00:09 - 00:20] Speaker A:` overlaps with `[00:02 - 00:10] Speaker B:`\n    *   This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A's \"Sorry to jump in\" indicates this was a conscious, brief interruption, likely to clarify or elaborate on a point Speaker B was making. This is a common and natural occurrence in engaged conversation, showing active listening rather than being disruptive.\n2.  `[01:16 - 01:24] Speaker A:` overlaps with `[01:08 - 01:17] Speaker B:`\n    *   This is also a 1-second overlap. Speaker A starts speaking just as Speaker B is finishing their sentence (ending with \"difficult or\"). This is a clear example of anticipatory turn-taking, where Speaker A picks up on Speaker B's thought to complete or expand upon it. This type of overlap enhances fluency, indicating strong engagement and understanding between speakers, rather than causing disruption.\n\nNeither of these overlaps is \"extended\" or prolonged; they are brief and serve to facilitate the natural rhythm of the conversation. The dialogue feels natural, spontaneous, and uninhibited by awkward silences or significant interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--104249",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Domanic, I helped you build that fort!\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: You did not help me build the fort.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: Yes, I did! I helped you gather the\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Wait, are you talking about the time you moved the chairs around? Because that's not the same as actually building it.\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker A: That's not the same thing as building a fort.\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker B: Exactly! Building a fort requires imagination and creativity. Arranging furniture does not.\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker A: Well, I was there with you and I contributed to the overall atmosphere by\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker B: Experience? Sure, but contributing to the experience isn't the same as physically building the fort.\n[00:30 - 00:33] Speaker A: That may be, but you did not help build the fort.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Both speakers consistently address the points raised by the other, maintaining a clear logical flow and topic coherence. Speaker B actively defines and redefines \"building\" the fort, systematically countering Speaker A's attempts to broaden the definition of \"help\" or \"contribution.\" Speaker A, in turn, adapts their arguments in response to B's refutations (e.g., shifting from \"gathering\" to \"contributing to atmosphere\"). The final line from Speaker A, \"That may be, but you did not help build the fort,\" while potentially ambiguous in isolation, is logically consistent if interpreted as A's concession, adopting B's consistent stance after failing to redefine \"help\" to include their actions. The entire exchange is a coherent and consistent debate around a central topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a rapid and natural conversational pace. Two brief overlaps occur:\n1.  [00:06 - 00:07] Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A for 1 second. Speaker B starts their turn while Speaker A is still mid-sentence (\"gather the\"). This seems to be an eager interruption for clarification or counter-argument, which is natural in a spirited discussion.\n2.  [00:25 - 00:26] Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A for 1 second. Speaker B again jumps in while Speaker A is mid-sentence (\"atmosphere by\"). This also indicates engagement and a quick desire to refute the point, rather than a disruptive or prolonged overlap.\nThese brief, 1-second overlaps are not prolonged and do not hinder the flow or understanding of the conversation; rather, they add to the naturalness and dynamic quality of a disagreement between two people.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 4
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--102",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I need to use the ATM.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: What's stopping you?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm not sure how.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: I don't understand. It is pretty straightforward once\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker A: Actually, I've never used one before.\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker B: OK. I can help you figure it out. What do I have to do?\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: First, slide your card into the machine.\n[00:16 - 00:17] Speaker B: Then what?\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker A: You need to type your PIN in.\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B: What do I have to do next?\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker A: Click on whichever option you want, and you're done.\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker B: Wait, you mentioned it was pretty easy, but I didn't catch what you were going to say. What makes it so simple?\n[00:31 - 00:39] Speaker A: Oh, I was just going to say that it's pretty easy because the instructions are usually displayed on the screen, guiding you step by step.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initially states a need, and Speaker B probes the reason. Speaker A reveals a lack of knowledge, which Speaker B initially finds surprising but then accepts and offers help. The subsequent step-by-step instructions for using the ATM are clear and directly responsive to Speaker B's questions (\"Then what?\", \"What do I have to do next?\"). Crucially, at the end, Speaker B recalls an earlier, interrupted statement by Speaker A about the ATM being \"pretty straightforward\" and asks for clarification. Speaker A then perfectly completes that earlier thought, explaining *why* it's simple. This demonstrates excellent topic coherence and conversational memory, making the interaction feel very natural and logically connected from start to finish.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There is one brief overlap at [00:07 - 00:09] where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing a word (\"once\"). This is a very common and natural occurrence in conversation, indicating active listening and a desire to clarify immediately. It is not a \"prolonged overlap\" or an \"overlapping turn\" that hinders communication. All other transitions between speakers are smooth, with either no pause or very short, natural pauses (e.g., 1 second at [00:01 - 00:02] and [00:30 - 00:31]). There are no long pauses that would disrupt the flow or indicate a breakdown in the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--415",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Do you remember where you were for the terrorist attacks on 9-11?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Yes, I was in my apartment in Beijing. Where were you?\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker A: I was at home with my parents in New York City.\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: Really? Did you see the hijacked planes crash into and destroy the twin towers? I\n[00:14 - 00:23] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but you were actually in New York City during the attacks? That must have been terrifying. How close were you to the towers?\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker B: I didn't see the crash itself, but I did see the smoke and everything afterwards from my parents' apartment building.\n[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker A: That must have been horrible. Did you go out at all that day to see what was happening on\n[00:33 - 00:36] Speaker B: Actually, I was about to ask if you knew anyone who worked in the World Trade Center?\n[00:37 - 00:41] Speaker A: Yes, my uncle's firm had an office in one of the towers.\n[00:41 - 00:42] Speaker B: Did he survive?\n[00:42 - 00:48] Speaker A: Unfortunately, he wasn't able to evacuate in time. He ended up dying in the tower.\n[00:48 - 00:52] Speaker B: I'm sorry. That must have really been a nightmarish day for you and your family.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. All turns are logically consistent and contribute meaningfully to the overarching topic of remembering 9/11. Speaker B's initial response not only answers Speaker A's question but also reciprocates (\"Where were you?\"), maintaining a natural conversational flow. Speaker A's follow-up questions are pertinent, and Speaker B's detailed answers remain on topic. The explicit \"Sorry to cut in\" from Speaker A acknowledges an interruption but immediately dives into a relevant clarification, showing active listening and topic adherence. Speaker B's pivot (\"Actually, I was about to ask if you knew anyone who worked in the World Trade Center?\") is a natural conversational redirection to a related, sensitive sub-topic, and Speaker A responds directly and emotionally. The final empathetic statement from Speaker B is highly appropriate and relevant to the deeply personal information shared by Speaker A. There are no instances of irrelevant responses or abrupt topic shifts that break coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high. The transcript indicates only one brief overlap at [00:14 - 00:15], where Speaker A explicitly says \"Sorry to cut in.\" This is a natural occurrence in conversation and is acceptable as it is brief (1 second) and acknowledged by the speaker. There are no extended overlaps. Similarly, the pauses between speaker turns are consistently short (0-1 second), indicating a smooth and natural conversational pace. These brief pauses are well within the acceptable range and do not hinder the flow of the interaction. The occasional abrupt endings of turns (e.g., Speaker B's \"I\" at 0:15, Speaker A's \"on\" at 0:33) do not signal a break in fluency or communication breakdown, but rather suggest natural self-correction or being prompted to yield the floor, which is common in spontaneous speech.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--79211",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Savon.\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Hey, Allan. What's up?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: Not much. Just hanging out and enjoying the peace and quiet, you\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but when you say \"peace and quiet,\" I can't help but wonder—how do you manage to find that? My life feels like everything is falling apart right now.\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker A: I'm sorry to hear that, Savon. What's going on?\n[00:20 - 00:32] Speaker B: My mom is sick and my dad is working all the time to try to pay for her medical bills. We're barely keeping our heads above water financially. And on top of all that, my girlfriend just broke up with me. I feel like I can't catch a break.\n[00:32 - 00:40] Speaker A: That does sound tough. But I want you to know that I'm here for you and I will help you through this tough time. You are not going to\n[00:40 - 00:45] Speaker B: I appreciate that, Allan. But how can you help? I mean, I don't even know where to start.\n[00:45 - 00:54] Speaker A: You don't have to figure it all out right now. Just take it one step at a time, and remember, you are not alone. I'll be here to support you, no matter what.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial interruption at [00:07] directly relates to Speaker A's preceding statement about \"peace and quiet,\" using it as a springboard to express their personal distress, which is logically consistent and introduces a new, yet connected, topic.\n- Speaker A's response at [00:16] (\"I'm sorry to hear that... What's going on?\") is empathetic and directly invites Speaker B to elaborate on their problems, maintaining the flow of the conversation.\n- Speaker B's detailed explanation at [00:20] directly answers Speaker A's question.\n- Speaker A's offer of support at [00:32] (\"I'm here for you and I will help you\") is a logical and compassionate response to B's expressed difficulties.\n- Speaker B's follow-up question at [00:40] (\"But how can you help?\") is highly relevant, showing B's immediate need for concrete guidance rather than just abstract support, which is natural given their stated feeling of being overwhelmed.\n- Speaker A's final reassurance at [00:45] (\"You don't have to figure it all out right now... you are not alone. I'll be here to support you\") directly addresses B's query and offers a form of support (emotional presence) that is within A's capacity, while also completing the thought A was expressing when interrupted earlier.\nThe conversation maintains a clear focus on Speaker B's issues and Speaker A's attempts to provide support, without any irrelevant detours or illogical statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural and appropriate.\n- There are no long pauses detected; turn-taking is consistently quick and responsive.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps/interruptions:\n    - At [00:07], Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. The overlap is brief (1 second, A speaks until 00:08, B starts at 00:07). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges and apologizes for this interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which makes it a very natural and polite interjection rather than a disruptive overlap.\n    - At [00:40], Speaker B starts speaking exactly when Speaker A finishes their sentence (\"You are not going to\"). This is a very quick turn-take, almost cutting A off, but not an \"extended overlap\" as both speakers are not speaking simultaneously for a prolonged period. This rapid response feels natural, conveying Speaker B's urgency and immediate reaction to A's offer of help.\nThese brief moments of interruption or rapid turn-taking add to the realism and naturalness of the conversation, particularly given the emotional context where Speaker B is distressed and eager to communicate their feelings and needs. They do not hinder understanding or flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--76766",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Brianna. What's up?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Not much. Just hanging out. You look really fashionable I was\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: Oh, thanks! By the way, where did you get that jacket? It's super cool.\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: Oh, this? I got it from a little boutique downtown. I just decided to go for a more relaxed look today.\n[00:17 - 00:18] Speaker A: It looks great on you!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial response \"Not much. Just hanging out.\" is a standard and appropriate reply to \"What's up?\". Speaker B then compliments Speaker A, which leads naturally to Speaker A's \"Oh, thanks!\" and subsequent question about Speaker B's jacket. This is a very common and coherent conversational turn. Speaker B's answer regarding the jacket's origin is direct and relevant, and Speaker A's final remark continues the positive reinforcement on the topic of the jacket. The topic coherence is maintained throughout, moving from a general greeting to a specific discussion about an item of clothing, all logically connected.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are no extended pauses between speaker turns, which indicates a smooth and continuous conversation flow. There is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from 0:05 to 0:06. Speaker A starts \"Oh, thanks!\" while Speaker B is still saying \"I was\". This 1-second overlap is very minor and common in natural, engaged conversation, where one speaker may quickly acknowledge or respond before the other has fully completed their thought, especially when responding to a compliment. It does not disrupt the flow or indicate a breakdown in turn-taking but rather a lively exchange. This is considered an acceptable, brief overlap and does not negatively impact fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--493",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Oh, you should cook something! It's really fun and therapeutic.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: I don't have anything in the house to cook with!\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: Just throw something in a pan! You'll learn as you experiment with\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: But what if I mess it up? I really have no idea where to start.\n[00:14 - 00:25] Speaker A: I understand, but cooking can be a great learning experience. Here's the recipe for a healthy lasagna. And don't worry, even if it doesn't turn out perfect, it's all part of the process!\n[00:25 - 00:26] Speaker B: Okay!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial objection (\"I don't have anything in the house to cook with!\") is a direct and logical response to Speaker A's suggestion. Speaker A's follow-up (\"Just throw something in a pan!\"), while perhaps a bit dismissive of the specific ingredient problem, is still relevant in its encouragement of experimental cooking. Speaker B then shifts from a practical obstacle to an emotional one (\"But what if I mess it up?\"), which is a natural progression when faced with the suggestion to just \"experiment.\" Speaker A's final response is excellent: it acknowledges Speaker B's fear (\"I understand\"), reframes the activity positively (\"great learning experience\"), offers a concrete solution (\"Here's the recipe...\"), and provides reassurance (\"don't worry, even if it doesn't turn out perfect...\"). This demonstrates empathy and effective problem-solving, leading to Speaker B's acceptance (\"Okay!\"). All turns build upon the previous one, maintaining a clear and coherent conversational thread.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency appears high. The timestamps indicate very short or instantaneous pauses between turns (e.g., Speaker B ends at 00:06, Speaker A starts at 00:06; Speaker A ends at 00:10, Speaker B starts at 00:10). The only noticeable pauses are 1 second (00:03-00:04 and 00:13-00:14), which are considered small and acceptable in natural conversation. There are no indications of extended overlaps or prolonged pauses that would disrupt the flow of the conversation. The rapid turn-taking suggests an engaged and dynamic exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--46191",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Wow, this place is beautiful!\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: It sure is! I've never been to the opera before. Have you?\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker A: No, I haven't. I'm really excited to see it for the first time, especially\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker B: Oh, me too! But I just realized, do you know how long the performance is going to be? I need to make sure I don't miss my train afterward.\n[00:18 - 00:26] Speaker A: Good point, I think it's about two and a half hours. But what I was saying is, it's my first time too, and I'm really looking forward to it.\n[00:27 - 00:29] Speaker B: That sounds perfect. What's the story about?\n[00:29 - 00:41] Speaker A: From what I understand, it's a love story between two people who are from different social classes. There's a lot of drama and conflict, but ultimately, it's\n[00:40 - 00:44] Speaker B: Oh, I love stories like that! Do you know if it's set in a particular time period?\n[00:44 - 00:52] Speaker A: Yes, I believe it's set in the 19th century, which should make the costumes and set designs really interesting to see.\n[00:52 - 00:56] Speaker B: That sounds like it'll be a really good show. I can't wait to see it!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's questions and comments directly follow Speaker A's statements, and vice-versa. For example, Speaker B responds to the initial observation of the beautiful place and then naturally introduces a related personal detail about never having been to the opera. Speaker A then answers directly and elaborates. When Speaker B shifts topic to the performance duration, it's a natural, practical concern in the context of attending an event, and Speaker A addresses it before returning to their interrupted point (\"But what I was saying is...\"), demonstrating excellent topic management and coherence. Subsequent questions about the story and time period are all direct and relevant follow-ups to previous answers. There are no instances of non-sequiturs or abrupt, unrelated topic changes.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; all pauses are either non-existent or very brief (0-1 second), which is natural for conversational flow. The main point for evaluation here is the presence of overlaps. There are two instances where Speaker B starts speaking before Speaker A finishes their sentence (at 0:10-0:11 and 0:40-0:41). In both cases, the overlap duration is 1 second, which falls under the definition of \"brief overlaps.\" While these brief overlaps do result in Speaker A's sentences being cut off, they are not \"extended overlaps\" that lead to prolonged simultaneous speech or significant disruption. Speaker A is able to seamlessly pick up their interrupted thought in the subsequent turn, indicating that these brief interruptions did not severely impede the conversation's flow or create awkwardness. Given that \"brief overlaps are acceptable,\" and these are indeed brief and do not cause major conversational breakdown, the overall interactional fluency remains high.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--52701",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Wayne. What are you up to tonight?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Just hanging out at home, relaxing. What about you? Got\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: Actually, I was just heading down to the bar for a drink or two. Wanna join me?\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: Sure, why not? I could use a break from all the\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker A: Great! I'll meet you there in 15 minutes?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n- Speaker A initiates by asking about Speaker B's plans, which is a common and coherent opening.\n- Speaker B responds directly to the question and reciprocates, maintaining topic coherence.\n- Speaker A then uses B's response as a segue to propose an activity and invite B, which is logically consistent with the flow of a casual conversation about plans.\n- Speaker B accepts the invitation, providing a brief, natural reason, which is a perfectly relevant response to an invitation.\n- Speaker A concludes by confirming the plan and setting a logistical detail (time/place), which logically wraps up the interaction.\nAll turns are directly related to the previous turn or the overall topic of making plans, demonstrating excellent topic coherence and logical progression.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the conversation flows smoothly.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - [00:05 - 00:06] Speaker B: ...Got / Speaker A: Actually, I was just heading... (1 second overlap)\n    - [00:12 - 00:14] Speaker B: ...from all the / Speaker A: Great! I'll meet you there... (2 second overlap)\nThese are very common and natural in spontaneous speech, where one speaker begins their turn just as the other is finishing theirs, often indicating engagement or anticipating the other's completion. They are not \"prolonged overlapping turns\" that hinder understanding or disrupt the flow. They reflect active listening and natural turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--582",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Wow! You work at Sephora? That's really cool! What do you like about working there?\n[00:05 - 00:14] Speaker B: We get free samples, which is great for trying out new makeup and skin care products. I also really like helping customers find their perfect products and seeing their\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but do you find it challenging to keep up with all the new products that come out?\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker B: It can be a bit overwhelming, but it's also exciting. We have regular training sessions to stay updated. Do you work at Sephora?\n[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm a manager. I've worked there for a few years now.\n[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker B: That's awesome! It must be pretty rewarding to work with the cosmetics and skin care products you know so much about!\n[00:37 - 00:44] Speaker A: I have to say, I've really gotten into beauty lately. I love reading and watching tutorials. Do you ever use beauty blogs?\n[00:45 - 00:50] Speaker B: Yeah, I have been reading up on makeup as well. Do you ever use beauty apps to\n[00:49 - 00:55] Speaker A: Oh, I was just about to ask which blogs you follow! I'm always looking for new recommendations.\n[00:55 - 01:03] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm subscribed to a lot of different ones on my phone. You should check out It's Not Funny and Beauty School. I love reading their reviews.\n[01:04 - 01:08] Speaker A: I will definitely check them out! They sound really interesting.\n[01:09 - 01:12] Speaker B: Have you ever gone to Sephora and tried out a bunch of different makeup products?\n[01:12 - 01:15] Speaker A: Yeah, of course! I like to do my research.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout.\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A** asks about working at Sephora and what Speaker B likes.\n2.  **[00:05 - 00:14] Speaker B** responds directly, mentioning free samples and helping customers. This is a direct answer to the question.\n3.  **[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A** follows up with a relevant question about keeping up with new products, showing active listening and engagement with Speaker B's previous statement about products.\n4.  **[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker B** addresses the challenge directly and then pivots by asking Speaker A if they also work at Sephora, maintaining topic coherence and shifting focus appropriately.\n5.  **[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker A** confirms they work there and states their role.\n6.  **[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker B** expresses appreciation and makes a logical inference about the rewarding nature of the job, building on Speaker A's disclosure.\n7.  **[00:37 - 00:44] Speaker A** introduces a related topic (personal interest in beauty, tutorials, blogs), which is a natural progression from discussing Sephora and beauty products.\n8.  **[00:45 - 00:50] Speaker B** confirms shared interest and asks about beauty apps, maintaining topic coherence.\n9.  **[00:49 - 00:55] Speaker A** clarifies their previous question about blogs, showing a desire for specific recommendations, which is highly relevant to the introduced topic.\n10. **[00:55 - 01:03] Speaker B** provides specific blog recommendations as requested.\n11. **[01:04 - 01:08] Speaker A** acknowledges and accepts the recommendations.\n12. **[01:09 - 01:12] Speaker B** returns to a Sephora-specific question related to trying products, bringing the conversation full circle back to their shared work/interest environment.\n13. **[01:12 - 01:15] Speaker A** responds directly and affirms their practice.\n\nOverall, the conversation flows very well, with each turn building logically on the previous one, and topic transitions are smooth and coherent. There are no irrelevant or nonsensical responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is very high.\n\n1.  **Overlaps:**\n    *   **[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A** overlaps with **[00:05 - 00:14] Speaker B**. The overlap duration is 1 second (from 00:13 to 00:14). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which indicates a natural, polite interruption, not a disruptive or prolonged overlap.\n    *   **[00:49 - 00:55] Speaker A** overlaps with **[00:45 - 00:50] Speaker B**. The overlap duration is 1 second (from 00:49 to 00:50). This is also a very brief and natural overlap, where Speaker A interjects to clarify or elaborate on their thought, typical of an engaged conversation.\n    *   Both overlaps are very brief (1 second) and indicative of natural, enthusiastic conversation rather than harmful interruptions.\n\n2.  **Pauses:**\n    *   The pauses between turns are consistently very short (0-1 seconds).\n    *   [00:30] Speaker A ends, [00:31] Speaker B starts (1 second pause).\n    *   [00:36] Speaker B ends, [00:37] Speaker A starts (1 second pause).\n    *   [00:44] Speaker A ends, [00:45] Speaker B starts (1 second pause).\n    *   [01:03] Speaker B ends, [01:04] Speaker A starts (1 second pause).\n    *   [01:08] Speaker A ends, [01:09] Speaker B starts (1 second pause).\n    *   These very brief pauses are perfectly natural for turn-taking and do not constitute \"long pauses\" that would disrupt the flow of conversation. They contribute to the natural rhythm of speech.\n\nThe overall conversational flow is smooth, dynamic, and exhibits the natural characteristics of real-time speech, including brief, acceptable overlaps and short, natural pauses. There are no extended overlaps or long, awkward pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--499",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Matthew? Hi!\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: Steve! Haven't seen you in ages! How long's it been?\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: It's got to be almost a year now.\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker B: How have you been?\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A: I'm pretty good. I've been looking for a place to live recently. My lease runs out next month and I don't want to end up\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker B: Oh, so you're moving? Have you found a place yet?\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker A: Not yet. I am still looking through the classifieds. Wish me luck.\n[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker B: Well, maybe I can help. Remember my neighbor?\n[00:26 - 00:27] Speaker A: Mrs. Thou?\n[00:28 - 00:35] Speaker B: Yes, her daughter's having a baby, so she's moving in with her to help out. I think if you are interested, you can come over and have a quick tour\n[00:34 - 00:39] Speaker A: Wait, before I forget, has your number changed? I want to make sure I can reach you.\n[00:40 - 00:44] Speaker B: Oh, no, it's still the same. But as I was saying, you can come over and have a look at the apartment.\n[00:45 - 00:52] Speaker A: Great. It's a lovely neighborhood. And it would be nice to be neighbors again. It would be just like the old days!\n[00:52 - 00:56] Speaker B: I'll ask Mrs. Thou when she's available to show the apartment and let you know.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance.\n1.  **Logical consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B's questions (\"How long's it been?\", \"How have you been?\", \"Have you found a place yet?\") are direct and relevant follow-ups to Speaker A's statements. Speaker B's offer to help (\"Remember my neighbor?\") is a direct and logical response to Speaker A's predicament of looking for a place to live. Speaker A's question about the phone number, while an interruption, is logically connected to the practicalities of arranging a viewing for the apartment discussed.\n2.  **Topic coherence:** The conversation maintains clear topic coherence. It starts with a general catch-up, transitions smoothly to Speaker A's housing situation, and then to Speaker B offering a solution. The brief digression about the phone number is a functional tangent that is quickly resolved, and the conversation promptly returns to the main topic of the apartment, demonstrating excellent coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits high interactional fluency.\n1.  **Extended overlaps:** There are no extended overlaps. Two brief overlaps are identified:\n    *   At [00:16], Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A. Speaker B jumps in with an immediate reaction and question (\"Oh, so you're moving? Have you found a place yet?\") as Speaker A is finishing a sentence. This is a very common and natural type of overlap in spontaneous conversation, indicating active listening and engagement.\n    *   At [00:34], Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B (\"Wait, before I forget, has your number changed?\"). This is an interruption, but it is brief and for a practical, relevant reason. Speaker B handles it well by answering and then smoothly returning to the previous topic, indicating that the flow was not severely disrupted or \"harmful.\" These brief overlaps enhance the naturalness of the dialogue rather than detracting from it.\n2.  **Long pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The timing of responses seems natural and conversational throughout.\nOverall, the interaction flows very smoothly without awkward silences or disruptive, prolonged overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--1332",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Carmen, I really wish people would stop making such a mess in front of the shop. It's getting really frustrating to\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker B: Annoying, I know. But what can we do? We can't exactly control other people.\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker A: I know we can't control other people, but it would be nice if they would just be more considerate and clean up after themselves. It's not that hard to take\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker B: Maybe we should put up a sign or something, asking people to please be considerate and clean up after themselves.\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker A: That's a good idea. I'll go make a sign right now.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Speaker A introduces a problem (mess in front of the shop). Speaker B immediately acknowledges the frustration and the general difficulty of controlling others. Speaker A then reiterates their core desire for consideration, and Speaker B offers a direct, relevant solution. Speaker A promptly accepts this solution. Each turn logically follows the previous one, building on the discussion about the problem and moving towards a resolution. The topic remains coherent throughout, focusing solely on the mess and its potential remedies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth and continuous flow of conversation. The brief overlaps (e.g., [00:05 - 00:06] and [00:18 - 00:19]) are natural and indicative of an engaged, responsive conversation, where one speaker might anticipate or jump in quickly while the other is finishing a thought. These are not extended or disruptive overlaps but rather common features of natural speech. The pacing feels realistic and unforced.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--410",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hello! How are you doing?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: I'm doing great, how about yourself?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm doing good! How are you finding Palo Alto?\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: It's a bit less liberal than Seattle! But it's a great place to live.\n[00:12 - 00:13] Speaker A: Do you like your neighborhood?\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: Yeah, I really like it. I really like the renovations that have been done on the community park\n[00:17 - 00:21] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but what kind of renovations are you talking about?\n[00:22 - 00:30] Speaker B: Mostly exterior improvements and some landscaping. That's good to hear. I am currently looking for a home to renovate. I'm looking at some condos on El Camino.\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker A: Oh, I like El Camino too! Some of my favorite local restaurants are there.\n[00:36 - 00:37] Speaker B: What's your favorite restaurant?\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker A: Carbo is one of my favorites, as well as Fuki - if you like sushi.\n[00:43 - 00:49] Speaker B: Haha - yeah, Fuki is my favorite too. It's a little pricy but I think it's worth it. How about you?\n[00:49 - 00:54] Speaker A: Well, for places to eat, there are a lot of options here. Do you cook at all?\n[00:54 - 00:57] Speaker B: I do! I'm not as good as you though.\n[00:57 - 00:59] Speaker A: Are you interested in trying new recipes?\n[01:00 - 01:04] Speaker B: Yeah, absolutely! I recently made slow cooker pork shoulder, and\n[01:03 - 01:08] Speaker A: Pork tenderloin? That sounds delicious! I'm going to have to try that!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement, ensuring a coherent conversation flow. For example:\n- Speaker B answers \"How are you finding Palo Alto?\" with a relevant observation about its liberalness.\n- Speaker A then narrows the topic from \"Palo Alto\" to \"neighborhood\" which is a logical progression.\n- Speaker B mentions park renovations, and Speaker A immediately asks for clarification, showing engagement.\n- Speaker B transitions smoothly from community park renovations to personal home renovation plans, keeping the theme of \"renovations\" alive.\n- Speaker A picks up on \"El Camino\" and links it to restaurants, a natural association.\n- The shift from discussing restaurants to asking \"Do you cook at all?\" is a natural conversational pivot within the broader theme of food.\n- Speaker A's interruption at [01:03] \"Pork tenderloin?\" is an enthusiastic (though slightly mistaken, or eager) engagement with Speaker B's recipe example, demonstrating strong topic relevance even if it overlaps.\nThe topics evolve naturally, without abrupt shifts or irrelevant contributions, maintaining a strong thread throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between turns, indicating a natural conversational rhythm. The dialogue flows smoothly from one speaker to the next.\nThere are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  At [00:17 - 00:21], Speaker A says \"Sorry to interrupt, but what kind of renovations...\", overlapping with Speaker B's preceding turn which ends at 0:18. This is a 1-second overlap, and Speaker A acknowledges the interruption, which makes it less disruptive.\n2.  At [01:03 - 01:08], Speaker A says \"Pork tenderloin? That sounds delicious!\", overlapping with Speaker B's turn which ends at 0:04 (\"pork shoulder, and\"). This is also a 1-second overlap. While it cuts Speaker B off mid-sentence, it is brief and indicates enthusiastic engagement rather than a breakdown in communication. Speaker B doesn't seem to be hindered from continuing or clarifying.\n\nAccording to the instructions, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these instances fit that description. There are no \"extended overlaps\" or \"long pauses\" that would be considered harmful. The pacing feels natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--190",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I want to give our kitchen the works.\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Why? I think it's convenient and efficient enough\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: No. The decoration has been out-of-date. My friends have a whole kitchen now. It's modern.\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B: Wait, are you saying their kitchen has all the latest gadgets? But do we really need to run after the fashion ? I\n[00:15 - 00:24] Speaker A: It's not just about fashion; it's about functionality too. I mean, our kitchen is good, but I was saying earlier that it's not as modern as I'd like it to be.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong relevance and logical consistency.\n*   Speaker B's initial \"Why? I think it's convenient and efficient enough\" directly addresses Speaker A's desire to \"give our kitchen the works,\" questioning the necessity.\n*   Speaker A's \"No. The decoration has been out-of-date. My friends have a whole kitchen now. It's modern.\" directly responds to B's \"Why?\" by providing reasons for the desired renovation.\n*   Speaker B then interprets \"modern\" as \"latest gadgets\" and \"fashion,\" asking \"But do we really need to run after the fashion?\". This shows an attempt to clarify and challenge Speaker A's motivation.\n*   Speaker A's final turn \"It's not just about fashion; it's about functionality too. I mean, our kitchen is good, but I was saying earlier that it's not as modern as I'd like it to be.\" directly counters B's \"fashion\" interpretation and re-emphasizes the core point of modernization.\nThe topic coherence is excellent, with the conversation consistently revolving around the kitchen's modernization and the reasons behind it.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\nThere are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  **[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A:** (starts at 00:04) **[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B:** (finishes at 00:05) - This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A begins \"No. The decoration...\" just as Speaker B is finishing \"convenient and efficient enough.\"\n2.  **[00:15 - 00:24] Speaker A:** (starts at 00:15) **[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B:** (finishes at 00:16) - This is also a 1-second overlap. Speaker A starts \"It's not just about fashion...\" as Speaker B is finishing \"...after the fashion ? I\".\n\nThe prompt states that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" These 1-second overlaps are brief and do not appear to be \"extended overlaps\" or \"overlapping turns\" that significantly hinder comprehension or natural flow. They suggest an engaged, dynamic conversation where speakers are keen to contribute, which is common in natural dialogue, especially when there's a slight disagreement or clarification needed. They are not harmful to the overall interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--669",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: So, who is your favorite celebrity?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: Ha - that's a tough one. I guess Ryan Reynolds! He is an interesting personality, always\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but what do you find most interesting about him?\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker B: I think it's his sense of humor and how he brings that into his roles. Have you seen his movies? I really like Deadpool.\n[00:18 - 00:22] Speaker A: I've seen some of his movies. I think he is great in some of his comedic\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B: Speaking of his movies, did you know he often improvises his lines? It makes his performances so unique.\n[00:28 - 00:36] Speaker A: Right? I just like how complex his character is. I think he is also a really talented actor. He is so personable and relatable.\n[00:37 - 00:43] Speaker B: I agree! He seems so down to earth. I heard he loves his fans and he spends a lot of time interacting with them.\n[00:43 - 00:52] Speaker A: Yes, that's what I've heard. He is very accessible. But you mentioned improvisation earlier, do you think that helps him connect more with his audience?\n[00:53 - 00:56] Speaker B: Yeah, he takes so many selfies. What do you like about him?\n[00:56 - 01:00] Speaker A: He's so sarcastic and funny. He's really likable.\n[01:00 - 01:02] Speaker B: Yeah, he seems very laid back.\n[01:03 - 01:07] Speaker A: Yes, but I guess he can get really intense when he's passionate about something.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial response (0:02-0:07) directly answers Speaker A's question.\n- Speaker A's follow-up (0:07-0:11) is a natural continuation, seeking more detail.\n- Speaker B elaborates with examples (0:11-0:18) and poses a relevant question.\n- Speaker A responds directly to B's question and elaborates (0:18-0:22).\n- Speaker B smoothly transitions by referring back to \"his movies\" and introducing a new, related fact about improvisation (0:21-0:28).\n- Speaker A's response (0:28-0:36) agrees and expands on positive traits, maintaining the focus on Ryan Reynolds' personality and talent.\n- Speaker B continues this thread (0:37-0:43), adding another aspect (fan interaction).\n- Speaker A effectively links back to an earlier point (\"improvisation\") and connects it to the current theme of audience connection (0:43-0:52). This shows good conversational memory and topic management.\n- Speaker B's response about selfies (0:53-0:56) is a slightly literal interpretation of \"accessible\" but still related to fan interaction. The follow-up question \"What do you like about him?\" is relevant to keeping A engaged.\n- Speaker A provides a direct answer (0:56-01:00), and the final turns continue to build on personality traits (1:00-01:07).\nThe conversation maintains a clear focus on Ryan Reynolds, with logical transitions and coherent points. There are no abrupt shifts or irrelevant responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe evaluation criteria define \"small pauses and brief overlaps\" as acceptable, while \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns\" are harmful.\n\n- **Pauses:** There are several 1-second pauses (e.g., A ends 0:36, B starts 0:37; A ends 0:52, B starts 0:53; B ends 1:02, A starts 1:03). These are natural conversational pauses and are not considered long or disruptive. The transitions are generally smooth.\n- **Overlaps:** One overlap is present:\n    - Speaker A's turn ends at 0:22 (\"comedic\"). Speaker B's turn starts at 0:21 (\"Speaking of his movies...\"). This is a 1-second overlap where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their thought. While this constitutes an overlap and implies a slight interruption, it is relatively brief (1 second) and does not significantly disrupt the flow or cause confusion. Speaker A manages to complete their word. In natural human conversation, such brief overlaps, especially when one speaker is eager to jump in with a related point, are common and typically not considered \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" unless they lead to repeated interruptions or unintelligibility. Given the context, this can be seen as an enthusiastic, albeit slightly premature, turn-take rather than a breakdown in fluency. The dialogue remains clear and easy to follow.\n\nOverall, despite the single minor overlap, the interactional fluency is largely appropriate and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--299",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Jimmy, I called you yesterday, but you didn't pick up.\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: I'm sorry Amy, I came home very late yesterday evening because Jennie and Bill invited me for a picnic.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker A: Oh, how lovely, did you have a\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I just remembered—wasn't there a meeting we were supposed to attend yesterday? Did you manage to catch up on that?\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker A: Oh, I completely forgot about that! I missed the meeting too. But back to your picnic, where did you go?\n[00:25 - 00:26] Speaker B: We went to Beihai Park.\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker A: Oh, it's lovely in Beihai Park at this time of year.\n[00:30 - 00:38] Speaker B: Yes, it was sunny and there were lots of people, we had lunch near the river. Then, after lunch, we went for a walk along the river and looked at the beautiful view there.\n[00:38 - 00:40] Speaker A: What did you do then?\n[00:40 - 00:49] Speaker B: We had a drink in a bar there and made some friends, we played cards and laughed, then we started to drive home. It took us a long time to arrive home because there was a lot of traffic on\n[00:49 - 00:55] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but you mentioned earlier that you came home late. What time did you finally get back?\n[00:55 - 01:00] Speaker B: Oh, right! I didn't mention that. We got caught in traffic and didn't get home until around 9:00 PM.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong **Response Relevance**.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** The conversation starts with A asking why B didn't pick up. B explains he was late due to a picnic. This is logically consistent. Later, B brings up a forgotten meeting, which A acknowledges before bringing the conversation back to the picnic. This shows flexibility and A's control in guiding the conversation. A's final interruption to ask about the time B got home is a direct follow-up on B's initial explanation of being \"very late,\" demonstrating a coherent link back to the conversation's starting point.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** While there is one explicit topic shift by Speaker B (bringing up the meeting), Speaker A effectively manages this by acknowledging it briefly and then redirecting back to the main topic (the picnic). This shows good conversational control and a desire to maintain the primary narrative flow. The conversation largely remains coherent around the picnic story and the reason for B's unavailability.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good **Interactional Fluency**.\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There are two instances of brief overlap, both explicitly acknowledged by the interrupting speaker (\"Sorry to interrupt\" by B and \"Sorry to cut in\" by A). These overlaps are very short (around 1 second based on timestamps) and do not constitute \"extended overlaps.\" They are natural features of dynamic conversation, where speakers might interject with new thoughts or seek clarification. The politeness markers (\"Sorry to...\") indicate that these are managed interruptions, not disruptive ones.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no noticeable long pauses between speaker turns. The conversation flows smoothly from one turn to the next, maintaining a natural pace.\nGiven the criteria that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" these brief, acknowledged overlaps do not detract from the fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--11626",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I'm so happy we have a healthy baby.\n[00:02 - 00:08] Speaker B: Yes, me too. I was a little worried at first, but everything seems to be going smoothly now,\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sorry, I just need to ask—when you say \"worried,\" was there something specific that concerned you?\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker B: I was mostly worried about the complications during delivery, but now that everything's fine, I think we're going to be really good parents.\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker A: I think so too. We just need to keep doing what we're doing and everything will be fine.\n[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker B: I know. I just want to make sure that our baby has everything they need.\n[00:30 - 00:33] Speaker A: We'll provide everything the baby needs, don't worry.\n[00:34 - 00:38] Speaker B: I know. I just want to do everything I can to make sure they're happy and comfortable as\n[00:37 - 00:41] Speaker A: Absolutely, and I was going to say, you're doing a great job so far.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial expression of worry is directly addressed by Speaker A, who seeks clarification. Speaker B's explanation of their worry about complications is then acknowledged and built upon by Speaker A with reassurance. The conversation seamlessly progresses from the initial joy of a healthy baby to parental anxieties and mutual reassurance about providing for the child. Each turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining a clear and coherent narrative about new parenthood.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are two instances of brief overlaps: [00:07 - 00:13] where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing their sentence, and [00:37 - 00:41] where Speaker A again starts while Speaker B is mid-sentence. Both overlaps are approximately 1 second in duration. The prompt states that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these examples fit that description. They do not appear to disrupt the flow or cause misunderstanding. There is also a small 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn at [00:30 - 00:33] and Speaker B's turn at [00:34 - 00:38], which is also acceptable and natural. No extended overlaps or long pauses are present.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--141995",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: This website is really well put together. I love the layout and the color\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Thank you! We spent a lot of time on it.\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: I can tell. There are some really great elements to it. But there are also some areas that could be improved.\n[00:13 - 00:13] Speaker B: Such as?\n[00:14 - 00:26] Speaker A: Well, for one thing, the navigation could be more intuitive. It's a little confusing in places. And the text is a bit small in some sections. Those are just a few things off the top of my head.\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker B: Yeah, we're always trying to improve things. Thanks for the constructive criticism.\n[00:30 - 00:38] Speaker A: Speaking of improvements, have you considered testing it on different devices? Some design elements might not translate well on mobile.\n[00:38 - 00:47] Speaker B: That's a good point. We have done some testing, but maybe not as extensively as we should. Also, thanks for the feedback on the navigation and text size.\n[00:47 - 00:51] Speaker A: No problem. I hope you don't mind if I make a few more suggestions?\n[00:52 - 00:54] Speaker B: Not at all! Please, go ahead.\n[00:54 - 01:08] Speaker A: Well, like I said, the navigation could be better. Maybe you could add some links in the sidebar to help people move around the site more easily. And you could increase the font size in some places. That would make it easier to read.\n[01:08 - 01:12] Speaker B: Yeah, those are both great ideas. We'll definitely look into them.\n[01:13 - 01:22] Speaker A: Awesome. I'm really glad you're open to feedback. This website has a lot of potential and I think with some tweaks it could be really great.\n[01:22 - 01:24] Speaker B: Thank you! We appreciate your input.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence throughout the conversation about website evaluation and improvement.\n*   Speaker B's initial \"Thank you!\" is a direct and appropriate response to Speaker A's compliment.\n*   Speaker A's transition to \"areas that could be improved\" naturally extends the initial praise.\n*   Speaker B's \"Such as?\" directly prompts Speaker A for details, which A then provides clearly and specifically (navigation, text size).\n*   Speaker B's \"Thanks for the constructive criticism\" and commitment to improvement are relevant acknowledgements.\n*   Speaker A smoothly transitions to a new suggestion (\"testing it on different devices\") by linking it to the ongoing theme of \"improvements.\"\n*   Speaker B addresses both the new suggestion and reiterates thanks for the previous feedback, showing comprehensive engagement.\n*   Speaker A's polite request to make \"a few more suggestions\" and B's enthusiastic \"Not at all! Please, go ahead\" demonstrate excellent conversational flow and mutual respect.\n*   Speaker A then reiterates and expands on previous points with more concrete solutions, which is logically consistent with being given permission to make \"more suggestions.\"\n*   The closing remarks from both speakers tie up the conversation politely and relevantly.\nThere are no instances of off-topic remarks, misunderstandings, or irrelevant contributions. The conversation progresses clearly and purposefully.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are several brief overlaps (e.g., [00:03 - 00:05], [00:30 - 00:38]), but these are very short (typically 1 second or less) and indicative of natural, engaged conversation rather than interruptions or turn-taking issues. They suggest active listening and smooth transitions between speakers. There are no extended or harmful overlaps.\n*   **Pauses:** There are a few short pauses (e.g., [00:05 - 00:06], [00:12 - 00:13]), typically 1 second in duration. These are natural lulls in conversation, allowing for processing or simply a comfortable pace, and do not indicate hesitation, awkwardness, or a breakdown in communication. There are no long or prolonged pauses.\nThe turn-taking is efficient and seamless, contributing to a natural and fluid interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--104496",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hi. I'm looking for a new copy of *The Catcher in the Rye*.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: We have it right over there on\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but do you have any other editions or maybe a hardcover version?\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker B: We do have a hardcover edition as well. Would you like to see that one instead?\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker A: Yes, please. I'll take the hardcover.\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker B: That'll be $15.95 for the hardcover.\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker A: Here you go. Thanks.\n[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker B: No problem, enjoy the book!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate high logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A's initial request for a specific book is met with a relevant response from Speaker B. Speaker A then refines their request by asking about other editions or a hardcover version, which is a logical follow-up given they are looking to purchase the book. Speaker B's subsequent responses directly address Speaker A's questions (confirming hardcover availability, offering it) and proceed logically through the transaction (stating the price). Speaker A's final responses (acceptance, payment confirmation) are also entirely relevant to the ongoing purchase. The conversation remains focused solely on the book purchase, exhibiting strong topic coherence throughout. There are no irrelevant detours, misunderstandings based on content, or illogical statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n**Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap: `[00:05 - 00:06]` where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. This overlap lasts only 1 second, which falls under the \"brief overlaps are acceptable\" criterion. Furthermore, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the interruption with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which mitigates any potential disruption and demonstrates good conversational etiquette. This is not an extended or harmful overlap.\n**Pauses:** There are two short pauses: `[00:15 - 00:16]` (1 second) and `[00:21 - 00:22]` (1 second). These are brief, natural pauses that do not impede the flow of the conversation. They are typical of real-world interactions, allowing for processing or brief moments of transition, and are well within the acceptable range.\nOverall, the turns are responsive and well-timed, contributing to a natural and fluent interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--87735",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, how was your day today?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: It was good. I went to the grocery store and then I made a list\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: Oh, did you remember to pick up the milk? We were almost out this morning.\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: Yes, I got the milk and some other essentials. I also made chicken and rice for dinner.\n[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker A: That sounds really good. I'm sorry I missed it.\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B: It's okay, there's always leftovers.\n[00:22 - 00:23] Speaker A: So, what did you do after dinner?\n[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker B: I watched a movie with the kids and then we played\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker A: Oh, which movie did you watch? The kids have been talking about that new animated one.\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker B: We actually watched that one! They loved it. After that, we went to bed.\n[00:36 - 00:38] Speaker A: That sounds like a really fun day.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement, maintaining a coherent flow of conversation about Speaker B's day.\n- Speaker B's initial response about going to the grocery store and making a list is a direct and relevant answer to \"how was your day?\".\n- Speaker A's follow-up about milk is a logical extension of Speaker B mentioning the grocery store.\n- Speaker B's confirmation of the milk and mention of dinner is relevant to the grocery store topic and introduces a new, logical progression for their day.\n- Speaker A's \"I'm sorry I missed it\" is a natural reaction to the dinner description.\n- Speaker B's \"It's okay, there's always leftovers\" is a perfectly relevant and comforting reply.\n- The shift to \"what did you do after dinner?\" maintains the chronological account of the day.\n- Speaker B's mention of watching a movie naturally leads to Speaker A's question about the specific movie.\n- Speaker B's confirmation of the movie and mentioning going to bed continues the narrative coherently.\n- Speaker A's concluding remark \"That sounds like a really fun day\" summarizes the interaction appropriately.\nThere are no instances of topic drift or illogical responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high.\n- **Pauses:** There are small pauses (1 second) between turns, which are natural and acceptable in human conversation (e.g., [00:01]-[00:02], [00:09]-[00:10], [00:14]-[00:15], [00:18]-[00:19], [00:21]-[00:22], [00:23]-[00:24], [00:35]-[00:36]). These are not \"long pauses\" that would disrupt the flow.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one instance of a brief overlap: `[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker A: Oh, which movie did you watch? The kids have been talking about that new animated one.` while `[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker B: I watched a movie with the kids and then we played`. Speaker A starts talking at 0:25 while Speaker B finishes at 0:26, resulting in a 1-second overlap. This is a very brief overlap, common in natural conversation where one speaker anticipates or picks up on a part of the previous utterance. It does not appear to be \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" and does not lead to rephrasing or confusion. The dialogue maintains a smooth, natural conversational rhythm without any extended or disruptive overlaps or pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--456",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey! How are you doing?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm doing well. How's your cooking going?\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: I made spaghetti the other day and it was delicious! It's my favorite to make when\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker B: Oh, that sounds amazing! What kind of sauce did you use for the spaghetti?\n[00:13 - 00:22] Speaker A: I used a classic marinara sauce with some fresh herbs. I can't wait to try it. Do you have any other recipes you'd recommend?\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker B: Not off the top of my head. I have been cooking a lot, but most of my recipes are intuitive. Have you ever made your own pesto?\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker A: I haven't. But it sounds great. Do you think I should make it with basil and olive oil, or\n[00:33 - 00:40] Speaker B: Basil and olive oil are a great start, but have you considered adding pine nuts or Parmesan cheese for extra flavor?\n[00:40 - 00:47] Speaker A: Sounds great to me! I love basil! I really do too. Do you like any other kinds of food?\n[00:47 - 00:50] Speaker B: I really like chowder, lobster rolls, and the classic mac and cheese.\n[00:51 - 00:58] Speaker A: Those sound delicious! By the way, I was going to ask earlier, what kind of sauce do you use for your spaghetti?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial question \"How's your cooking going?\" is a direct and logical follow-up to \"How are you doing?\".\n- The conversation then coherently transitions to spaghetti, then specific sauces, then general recipe recommendations, and subsequently to pesto.\n- Speaker A's \"Do you think I should make it with basil and olive oil, or\" is appropriately completed by Speaker B's elaboration on pesto ingredients.\n- The shift to \"Do you like any other kinds of food?\" by Speaker A is a natural conversational transition after discussing cooking in detail.\n- Speaker A's final turn, \"By the way, I was going to ask earlier, what kind of sauce do you use for your spaghetti?\", shows a clear and logical recall of an earlier, related topic that was momentarily sidetracked, making the return highly coherent.\nAll turns build on previous ones or transition smoothly and logically, maintaining the flow of the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - [00:09 - 00:10]: Speaker B begins speaking one second before Speaker A finishes. This is a very common and natural occurrence in conversational turn-taking, indicating engagement rather than interruption.\n    - [00:33 - 00:35]: Speaker B starts speaking two seconds before Speaker A finishes, specifically as Speaker A trails off with \"or\". This suggests Speaker B might have anticipated Speaker A's thought or completed their sentence, which is also a natural aspect of fluent conversation, not a prolonged or harmful overlap.\n- There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The longest pause observed is one second between [00:50] and [00:51], which is minimal and entirely acceptable.\nThe pacing of the dialogue feels natural and unforced.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--681",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hello! How are you doing?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Hello, I'm doing great. Are you going to start planting your garden soon?\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: I am planning to! I think it's going to be so fun.\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: That sounds like it'll be an exciting project. What kind of flowers do you want to plant alongside\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker A: Actually, I'm thinking about planting tomatoes, but I'm not sure!\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker B: Tomatoes are pretty popular. I wonder why that is.\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker A: I also want to grow lettuce. It will be nice to have fresh food during the summer.\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker B: I feel like having fresh, organic produce is so important!\n[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker A: Do you think we should grow basil in our garden to complement\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker B: Basil is probably the most common herb to grow in a garden. People often make pesto with basil.\n[00:39 - 00:41] Speaker A: I've never tried making pesto before!\n[00:41 - 00:44] Speaker B: Where would you get your basil from if you planted it in your garden?\n[00:45 - 00:50] Speaker A: Oh, I was actually going to ask earlier, what kind of flowers do you think would go well with the tomatoes?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speakers consistently stay on the topic of gardening, specifically planning what to plant.\n*   Speaker B's initial question about gardening smoothly transitions the conversation.\n*   Speaker A's shift from \"flowers\" to \"tomatoes\" is a natural clarification.\n*   The discussion on lettuce, fresh food, and basil all build coherently on the gardening theme.\n*   Speaker B's question at [00:41 - 00:44] (\"Where would you get your basil from if you planted it in your garden?\") is slightly redundant or awkwardly phrased given the context that basil would be *planted* in the garden. However, it's a minor logical blip and doesn't derail the conversation.\n*   Speaker A's response at [00:45 - 00:50] (\"Oh, I was actually going to ask earlier, what kind of flowers do you think would go well with the tomatoes?\") is a *conscious* and *coherent* return to an earlier, unresolved point in the conversation, indicating good conversational management rather than a lack of coherence. It shows the speaker remembered an earlier thread and chose to bring it back.\nOverall, the topic coherence is maintained, and responses are logically consistent for the most part, with only one very minor hiccup.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n*   **Pauses:** All pauses between turns are consistently 1 second (e.g., [00:01-00:02], [00:09-00:10], etc.). These are very brief and natural, fitting the \"small pauses... are acceptable\" criteria. There are no long pauses.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps:\n    *   [00:14 - 00:18] Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing at [00:15]. This is a 1-second overlap.\n    *   [00:33 - 00:38] Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing at [00:34]. This is a 1-second overlap.\nBoth overlaps are only 1 second long, which is classified as \"brief\" and is acceptable according to the criteria (\"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful\"). There are no extended overlaps. The dialogue flows very naturally with appropriate timing.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--130030",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey Marley, how's it going?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Good, just getting in a little run. You?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm good, just finished up a run myself. It's really nice out and I\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker B: Oh, speaking of the weather, did you hear about that storm coming in next week? I hope it doesn't mess up our running routine.\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: Yeah, I heard about that. Hopefully, it won't be too bad. But anyway, what have you been up to lately?\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker B: Just the usual, working out, hanging out with friends. You know, the usual.\n[00:26 - 00:34] Speaker A: Yeah, I hear you. I've been pretty busy myself lately. But I always make time for a run. It's just so refreshing, you feel like\n[00:32 - 00:36] Speaker B: Exactly! And it's so much fun when you have someone to run with too.\n[00:37 - 00:45] Speaker A: Yeah, definitely. It's always more enjoyable when you have company. Well, I should get going. It was great talking to you Marley!\n[00:45 - 00:48] Speaker B: Yeah, same here Dillon! Take care!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining topic coherence throughout the conversation.\n- Speaker B responds directly to Speaker A's initial greeting and question.\n- Speaker A then expands on their own activity, naturally leading to a comment on the weather.\n- Speaker B picks up on the weather comment to introduce a related topic (storm affecting running routine), which is a natural conversational shift.\n- Speaker A acknowledges the storm topic and then smoothly transitions to a general \"what have you been up to\" question, common in casual chat.\n- Speaker B provides a direct answer.\n- Speaker A relates back to B's activities and brings the focus back to running, which was an initial shared theme.\n- Speaker B enthusiastically agrees and expands on the running theme.\n- Speaker A agrees and then gracefully initiates the conversation's closing.\n- Speaker B reciprocates the closing.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses, misunderstandings, or abrupt, illogical topic shifts. The conversation flows very naturally.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n- **Pauses:** There are small, natural pauses (typically 1 second) between turns (e.g., [00:01-00:02], [00:21-00:22], [00:25-00:26], [00:36-00:37]). These are brief and do not constitute long or awkward silences.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps:\n    - [00:08 - 00:15] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A ([00:04 - 00:09]) for about 1 second. Speaker B's utterance (\"Oh, speaking of the weather...\") clearly picks up on Speaker A's implied comment about the weather (\"It's really nice out and I\"). This is a very common and natural type of overlap in engaged conversation, indicating active listening and anticipating the speaker's point, rather than a disruptive interruption.\n    - [00:32 - 00:36] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A ([00:26 - 00:34]) for about 2 seconds. Speaker B's \"Exactly!\" is an enthusiastic agreement that comes in naturally as Speaker A is trailing off or building to a point. This type of overlap enhances the sense of shared enthusiasm and engagement and is not \"prolonged\" or harmful.\nNeither of these overlaps is extended or prolonged; they are brief and contribute to the natural, engaged feel of the conversation. The conversation feels dynamic and natural, without any significant fluency issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--68329",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, I'm sorry about what happened earlier.\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: It's fine, I know you were just doing your best to\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: I just want to make sure we're okay. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.\n[00:09 - 00:10] Speaker B: Thanks, I appreciate that.\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker A: No problem. So, are we still good?\n[00:14 - 00:15] Speaker B: Yeah, we're good.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker A initiates with an apology, which Speaker B accepts, demonstrating logical consistency. Speaker A then clarifies their intent (\"I didn't mean to hurt your feelings\"), building on the previous turn and showing coherence. Speaker B's \"Thanks, I appreciate that\" directly responds to A's reassurance. Finally, Speaker A seeks confirmation of the relationship's status, and Speaker B provides a clear, affirmative answer. The conversation maintains a single topic (reconciliation) and each turn directly relates to and progresses the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural. There is one brief overlap: Speaker A starts speaking at 0:04 while Speaker B is still speaking until 0:05. This is a 1-second overlap. This type of brief overlap is common in natural conversation, especially when one speaker is eager to clarify or reiterate their feelings during a sensitive discussion (Speaker A cutting in to say \"I just want to make sure we're okay\" as Speaker B is trying to downplay the issue). It does not feel like a disruptive or prolonged overlapping turn. There are no long pauses; the pauses between turns (e.g., 0:10-0:11, 0:13-0:14) are brief (1 second each) and contribute to a natural conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--56",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Excuse me. Can you tell me how to get to City Hall?\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: Yes. Go to the next corner and turn left onto Center Street. Walk three blocks to Second Avenue and you'll see\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but is there any landmark I should look out for after I turn left onto Center Street?\n[00:15 - 00:25] Speaker B: Oh, good question! After you turn left onto Center Street, you'll pass a small park on your right before you reach Second Avenue. Then, turn right at Second Avenue and walk two more blocks. You'll see City Hall on the left.\n[00:26 - 00:34] Speaker A: Got it. So, after turning onto Center Street, I pass the park, then turn right at Second Avenue, and walk two blocks to City Hall?\n[00:34 - 00:36] Speaker B: Exactly. Have you got all that?\n[00:36 - 00:40] Speaker A: Yes, I think I'm good now. Thanks so much!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B provides clear directions in response to Speaker A's initial query. When Speaker A seeks clarification by asking about a landmark, Speaker B not only provides the landmark but also slightly adjusts the subsequent directions (\"two more blocks\" instead of \"three blocks\" implicitly from the earlier cut-off statement), showing adaptive and precise communication. Speaker A's summary at [00:26 - 00:34] demonstrates excellent active listening and logical processing of the information, which Speaker B promptly confirms. The entire conversation remains tightly focused on the topic of giving directions to City Hall without any digressions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent fluency. There are no extended overlaps. The only overlap occurs between [00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A and [00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B, where Speaker A starts speaking at 00:08 while Speaker B finishes at 00:09. This is a very brief 1-second overlap, which Speaker A immediately acknowledges with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" making it a natural and acceptable part of fluent conversation, not a disruptive one. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Most transitions are immediate or involve a very brief 1-second pause, indicating responsive and natural turn-taking. This contributes to a smooth and efficient information exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--474",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Steve, thanks for looking after Johnny.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: It was a pleasure, Mrs. Robinson.\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: And this kitchen is so clean. Did you help Johnny with the dishes\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but I just remembered—did you want me to take out the garbage before I leave?\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: Oh, I was just asking if you helped Johnny with the dishes. But yes, the garbage too?\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: Yeah, uh, it's outside. Listen, I really have to be going now.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker B demonstrates significant issues in response relevance.\n1.  **[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B:** Instead of responding to Speaker A's direct question (\"Did you help Johnny with the dishes?\"), Speaker B abruptly changes the topic to taking out the garbage. This shows a clear lack of logical consistency and topic coherence with Speaker A's preceding turn. While presented as \"just remembered,\" it's a deflection from the ongoing conversation point.\n2.  **[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B:** Even after Speaker A explicitly re-states their original question (\"Oh, I was just asking if you helped Johnny with the dishes.\"), Speaker B completely ignores it and only addresses the garbage question before stating a need to leave. This further highlights Speaker B's disinterest in engaging with Speaker A's initial line of inquiry, making the interaction one-sided and lacking in reciprocal relevance.\nSpeaker A's responses are logically consistent and relevant, as they try to follow up on their original question while also addressing Speaker B's abrupt topic changes.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is a notable issue with extended overlap/interruption.\n1.  **[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B:** Speaker B begins speaking at 00:08 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:09, explicitly stating \"Sorry to cut in.\" This is an acknowledged and deliberate interruption rather than a brief, cooperative overlap. While the time difference is only 1 second, the *impact* of this overlap is significant as it prevents Speaker A from finishing their thought and getting an answer, immediately shifting the topic. This is an \"overlapping turn\" that is harmful to the natural flow, as it disrupts turn-taking rules and introduces a new, unrelated topic before the previous one is resolved. No long pauses are detected in the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--46402",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, what do you do for a living?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: I'm a banker.\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: That's interesting. I work in finance, too. What kind of banking do you specialize in?\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but I'm curious—are you in corporate finance as well, or do you focus on something different?\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker A: I actually focus more on investment management. But back to your role, you were saying you work in corporate banking?\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker B: Yes, I help companies with their financial needs.\n[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker A: That sounds like a really important job. I'm sure you're very good at it.\n[00:28 - 00:30] Speaker B: Thanks. I try my best.\n[00:30 - 00:32] Speaker A: So, what brought you to this city?\n[00:32 - 00:35] Speaker B: My company transferred me here for a new\n[00:34 - 00:40] Speaker A: Oh, that makes sense. Was it a big adjustment for you, moving away from your family on the east coast?\n[00:41 - 00:48] Speaker B: It was definitely a change, but I'm getting used to it. I like the city so far, even though it's quite different from what I'm used to.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout.\n- **Initial Exchange:** Speaker A's question \"So, what do you do for a living?\" is directly answered by Speaker B. Speaker A's follow-up questions about finance and specialization are also highly relevant.\n- **Interjection and Recovery:** Speaker B's interjection at [00:07 - 00:13] (\"Sorry to jump in, but I'm curious—are you in corporate finance as well...\") is relevant to Speaker A's preceding statement (\"I work in finance, too.\"). Speaker A handles this well by answering the question and then smoothly redirecting back to Speaker B's role (\"But back to your role, you were saying you work in corporate banking?\"). This demonstrates good conversational management and topic coherence.\n- **Smooth Transition:** The shift to \"what brought you to this city?\" at [00:30 - 00:32] is a natural conversational pivot, often seen in initial getting-to-know-you interactions.\n- **Follow-up:** Speaker A's follow-up question at [00:34 - 00:40] (\"Was it a big adjustment for you, moving away from your family on the east coast?\") builds logically on Speaker B's previous, albeit cut-off, statement about being transferred. Speaker B's final response is a direct and relevant answer.\nOverall, the conversation flows logically, and each turn is directly related to or a natural progression from the preceding turn(s).\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with a few instances of brief overlaps that are natural in conversation rather than harmful.\n- **Pauses:** There are small pauses of 1 second at [00:01 - 00:02], [00:23 - 00:24], and [00:40 - 00:41]. These are brief and acceptable, allowing for natural processing time. Other transitions are seamless with no noticeable pauses.\n- **Overlaps:**\n    - [00:07 - 00:08]: Speaker B starts speaking 1 second before Speaker A finishes. Speaker B explicitly apologizes (\"Sorry to jump in\"), indicating an awareness of the overlap and making it feel more natural as an eager interjection rather than a rude interruption. This is a brief and acceptable overlap.\n    - [00:34 - 00:35]: Speaker A starts speaking 1 second before Speaker B finishes their sentence. Speaker A's response (\"Oh, that makes sense.\") is an immediate reaction to what Speaker B is saying, often leading to slight overlaps in natural conversation as one speaker anticipates or reacts quickly. This is also a brief and acceptable overlap.\nNeither overlap is prolonged or creates confusion, and they contribute to a natural, dynamic feel of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--109",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Did you see the robbery?\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: I sure did.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker A: Did you see everything?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: I was in the bank at the moment when\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: Sorry to cut you off, but were you close enough to the robber to notice any specific details, like his height or build?\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker B: I was, but he was wearing a mask, so I couldn't see his face. However, I was saying I was in the bank at the time, so I did get a good look at his build.\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker A: Was anyone else with him?\n[00:22 - 00:23] Speaker B: He came in alone.\n[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker A: Could you come to the station for more questioning?\n[00:27 - 00:28] Speaker B: That'll be fine.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's questions are direct and focused on gathering information about the robbery. Speaker B's responses are consistently on-topic, directly answering the questions asked, and providing relevant details. For example, when Speaker A asks about details, Speaker B directly addresses it (\"I couldn't see his face. However... I did get a good look at his build.\"). There are no instances of the conversation veering off-topic or of illogical jumps between turns. Speaker B also coherently connects back to their interrupted statement, indicating good memory and contextual awareness (\"However, I was saying I was in the bank at the time...\"). The progression of questions from general inquiry to specific details and next steps (coming to the station) is highly logical for an investigative context.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns; the gaps are consistently 0-1 second, which is natural and promotes smooth conversation flow. There is one extended overlap: `[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A` overlaps with `[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B`. This overlap is brief (1 second, from 00:05 to 00:06) and explicitly acknowledged and apologized for by Speaker A (\"Sorry to cut you off\"). This acknowledgement makes the overlap a natural and acceptable part of the conversation, demonstrating awareness and politeness, rather than a harmful or disruptive element. It indicates a realistic, dynamic interaction where one speaker might anticipate or interject, but does so respectfully.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--132960",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey Jonatan, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much, what about you?\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm good. Just hanging out, thinking about all the\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: What kind of stuff? Anything specific on your mind?\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker A: I don't know. Just stuff. Life, I guess.\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker B: Yeah, life can be pretty weird sometimes.\n[00:17 - 00:26] Speaker A: Tell me about it. But it's also good, you know? I mean, we're here, alive and everything. That's pretty amazing when you stop and\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker B: Sorry, I just wanted to say, it's really cool that we can talk about these things. Not everyone gets it.\n[00:32 - 00:40] Speaker A: Yeah, it is pretty amazing. And we get to experience so many different things and meet so many different people. It's really awesome.\n[00:41 - 00:46] Speaker B: Totally. I'm really glad we met, Jonatan. You're a great friend and I always have fun when I'm with you.\n[00:47 - 00:50] Speaker A: Aww, thank you! I feel the same way about you!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B's initial query \"Not much, what about you?\" is a standard, relevant follow-up to \"what's up?\". Speaker B's follow-up question at [00:07] \"What kind of stuff? Anything specific on your mind?\" directly addresses Speaker A's incomplete thought about \"thinking about all the\" and probes for more information. Later, Speaker B's interjection at [00:26] \"Sorry, I just wanted to say, it's really cool that we can talk about these things. Not everyone gets it.\" while an interruption, is highly relevant to the *context* and *depth* of the conversation (\"we're here, alive and everything. That's pretty amazing\"). It expresses a meta-comment on their interaction, which is a common and relevant conversational move among close friends. The conversation then naturally transitions from life's profoundness to appreciation for their friendship, with Speaker B's compliment at [00:41] and Speaker A's reciprocal expression at [00:47].\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The conversation maintains excellent topic coherence. It starts with a casual greeting, moves into a reflection on \"life\" and its complexities/wonders, then shifts smoothly to an appreciation of their shared ability to discuss such topics, and finally culminates in mutual appreciation of their friendship. The progression feels natural and organic, without any jarring topic shifts or irrelevant detours.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, closely mimicking natural human conversation.\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There are no prolonged or harmful extended overlaps.\n    *   At [00:07 - 00:10], Speaker B begins speaking at 0:07 while Speaker A is still speaking until 0:08, resulting in a 1-second overlap. This is a brief, acceptable overlap that indicates active listening and eagerness to engage, not a disruption. It shows Speaker B anticipating A's thought and jumping in naturally.\n    *   At [00:26 - 00:31], Speaker B begins speaking at 0:26, exactly when Speaker A finishes their sentence. While technically an immediate cut-off, B starts with \"Sorry, I just wanted to say...\", which acknowledges the interruption and frames it as a sudden, important thought. This type of interjection is highly natural in friendly, informal dialogue and does not impede the flow; rather, it enhances the authenticity of the interaction.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. All pauses between turns are brief (typically 1 second, e.g., A ends 0:13, B starts 0:14; B ends 0:31, A starts 0:32). These short pauses are natural hesitations that allow for processing and turn-taking, contributing to a realistic and smooth conversational rhythm rather than indicating any breakdown in communication.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--446",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:12] Speaker A: There you are, Ben. The information about the evening classes I sent off for has arrived. Right, here are the general courses. Flower arranging. That's a real course? Why would someone want to do something like\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: You sit in front of the TV watching baseball for 3 hours every Saturday. And many people would find that boring, too.\n[00:17 - 00:26] Speaker A: OK, relax. Let's see what else. Photography. That looks interesting. It started last week, but I don't think that would be a problem.\n[00:27 - 00:44] Speaker B: But look at the price. $280 is too much for me. I wonder why it's so expensive. I don't think I can afford it. But, hey, at least it's $40 cheaper than the Italian wine course. Look at that. $400 web design for beginners. It's pretty cheap. What do you think?\n[00:44 - 00:53] Speaker A: I don't want to see a computer in the evening too. Hey, look. How about Indian cooking? Starts this week. A little bit expensive.\n[00:54 - 01:01] Speaker B: $190. You know how much I love Indian food. I'll call him tomorrow to see if there are still spaces available, but\n[01:00 - 01:02] Speaker A: I'll call them right away.\n[01:02 - 01:04] Speaker B: There won't be anyone there now. We'll try in the morning.\n[01:05 - 01:18] Speaker A: Oh, and about that photography course, I was going to say it could be worth the price if we consider the equipment they might provide. But anyway, this Indian cooking class will be great. We can have our own Indian dinner parties.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A introduces the topic of evening classes, and Speaker B engages directly with the suggestions, offering counterpoints (e.g., baseball vs. flower arranging), discussing practicalities like price and affordability for photography and web design, and expressing enthusiasm for Indian cooking. The conversational flow moves naturally from general course browsing to specific course evaluation, and then to a decision point (calling about Indian cooking). Speaker A's brief return to the photography course at the end, while seemingly a slight digression, is presented as a previously uncompleted thought (\"I was going to say...\") and quickly ties back to the current positive feeling about the Indian cooking class, maintaining overall coherence. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant comments.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural and engaged conversation. There is one brief overlap detected: `[01:00 - 01:02] Speaker A: I'll call them right away.` overlaps with `[00:54 - 01:01] Speaker B: ...available, but`. This is a common and natural occurrence in dynamic conversation, where one speaker anticipates or eagerly responds to another's suggestion, especially when B was trailing off (\"but\"). It is a brief overlap (approximately 1 second) and does not disrupt the flow or understanding. The prompt states that \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this falls into that category. There are no extended overlaps or detrimental pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--75",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm so sorry I had to leave the party early. I didn't get to talk to my friends as much as I wanted to.\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: It's okay, Haylee. I understand how you feel. You'll definitely have another chance to talk to them and maybe\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker A: I hope so, but what if they were upset that I left early? I just don't want them to think I didn't care.\n[00:17 - 00:25] Speaker B: Oh, I didn't consider that. But honestly, if they're true friends, they'll understand. Have you thought about reaching out to them later to explain?\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker A: Yeah, I guess you're right. I'm just really disappointed right now.\n[00:30 - 00:31] Speaker B: Why are you so upset about\n[00:30 - 00:39] Speaker A: Disappointed? I don't know. I just am. This party was really important to me and I didn't get to enjoy it as much as I wanted to.\n[00:40 - 00:44] Speaker B: It's okay, Haylee. These things happen sometimes. You can't let it ruin your night.\n[00:44 - 00:49] Speaker A: Yeah, you're right. Thanks for understanding, Evanna.\n[00:49 - 00:52] Speaker B: Of course, Haylee. That's what friends are for.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the expressed sentiments and concerns.\n- Speaker B consistently offers understanding, reassurance, and practical advice in response to Speaker A's disappointment and worries about the party and friends.\n- Speaker A's responses acknowledge Speaker B's points while also continuing to express their feelings, which is natural in a supportive conversation.\n- The topic of Speaker A's disappointment about leaving the party early and concerns about friends is maintained throughout, demonstrating excellent topic coherence. There are no irrelevant or off-topic turns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is highly natural and appropriate.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps:\n    - [00:11 - 00:12]: Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing, an overlap of 1 second. This is a very common and natural occurrence in conversation, indicating active listening or eagerness to respond.\n    - [00:30 - 00:31]: Speaker A starts speaking immediately as Speaker B is asking a question, an overlap of 1 second. This also sounds natural, as Speaker A might be anticipating the question or clarifying their own previous statement (\"disappointed?\").\nBoth overlaps are brief and do not hinder the flow or understanding of the conversation; they contribute to its natural feel.\n- **Pauses:** There are minimal pauses between turns.\n    - [00:29] Speaker A ends, [00:30] Speaker B starts: 1 second pause.\n    - [00:39] Speaker A ends, [00:40] Speaker B starts: 1 second pause.\nAll other transitions are immediate (0-second pauses). These 1-second pauses are very short and natural, allowing for quick processing and turn-taking without feeling like prolonged silences or conversational breakdowns.\nOverall, the timing of turns, including the brief overlaps and minimal pauses, reflects a highly fluid and natural conversational exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--18076",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi, how are you?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: I'm doing well, thank you. How are you?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm good. Thanks. How much is this video game?\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker B: It's fifty dollars. But\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: Oh, by the way, does this game come with any additional content or DLC?\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: No, it's just the base game. As I was saying, it's fifty dollars.\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker A: Okay, I'll take it.\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker B: Great! That will be fifty dollars please.\n[00:23 - 00:24] Speaker A: Here you go.\n[00:24 - 00:25] Speaker B: Thank you!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate high logical consistency and topic coherence.\n1.  **Initial Greetings:** Speakers A and B engage in appropriate pleasantries and exchange inquiries about well-being, which is a standard and logical opening for many conversations.\n2.  **Topic Shift to Transaction:** Speaker A's pivot from greeting to \"How much is this video game?\" is a natural and common shift in a retail or transactional context. It's coherent with the implied setting.\n3.  **Information Exchange:** Speaker B provides the price. Speaker A's subsequent question, \"does this game come with any additional content or DLC?\", is highly relevant to purchasing a video game and is a logical clarifying question a buyer might ask before committing. It directly relates to the product and value.\n4.  **Managing Interruption and Reiteration:** Speaker B's response \"No, it's just the base game. As I was saying, it's fifty dollars.\" is excellent. It directly answers Speaker A's clarifying question and then logically returns to the interrupted point (the price), demonstrating strong coherence and memory of the ongoing transaction.\n5.  **Concluding Transaction:** Speaker A's decision \"Okay, I'll take it.\" and the subsequent exchange of payment and thanks are all perfectly logical and coherent steps in a purchasing scenario.\nThere are no irrelevant comments, abrupt topic changes that are not natural, or illogical replies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is generally excellent, with one instance of a brief, natural overlap.\n1.  **Pauses:** There are no long or unnatural pauses between speaker turns. The conversation flows smoothly from one turn to the next, indicating good conversational rhythm.\n2.  **Overlaps:** There is one instance of an overlap:\n    *   At [00:08 - 00:09] Speaker B says \"It's fifty dollars. But\"\n    *   Simultaneously at [00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A starts \"Oh, by the way, does this game come with any additional content or DLC?\"\n    This is an **interruption/overlapping turn** where Speaker A jumps in with a new question before Speaker B finishes their sentence. However, this is a very common and often natural feature of conversational speech, especially when a participant anticipates the end of a turn or has an immediate, related follow-up question. It is not an \"extended overlap\" that hinders understanding or disrupts the flow significantly. Speaker B effectively manages this by acknowledging the interruption (\"As I was saying\") and reiterating their point. This type of brief, non-disruptive overlap contributes to the naturalness of the dialogue rather than detracting from it. It does not indicate a lack of fluency or poor interactional quality.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--115631",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Tyrus. I had a great time with you yesterday.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yeah, me too. I always have a great time when I'm with you.\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Aww, that's so sweet of you to say. I feel the same way whenever\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: Speaking of which, I was wondering if you wanted to do something similar today, like maybe go for a walk in the park?\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker A: That sounds lovely, but I was actually thinking maybe we could go see a movie or something.\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B: That sounds like fun! What movie did you have in mind?\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker A: I don't know, I was thinking about that new blockbuster that just came out.\n[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker B: Oh, you mean the one everyone's been talking about?\n[00:34 - 00:37] Speaker A: Yeah, exactly! Should we go see it?\n[00:37 - 00:39] Speaker B: Absolutely, let's go!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate excellent logical consistency and topic coherence. Each speaker's turn directly relates to what the previous speaker said, building upon the conversation naturally.\n- Speaker B's initial response reciprocates Speaker A's sentiment.\n- Speaker A's follow-up (\"Aww, that's so sweet...\") is a direct reaction to Speaker B's compliment.\n- Speaker B then smoothly transitions from the pleasantries to a suggestion for an activity, linking it to the positive experience (\"Speaking of which, I was wondering if you wanted to do something similar today...\").\n- Speaker A acknowledges B's suggestion positively (\"That sounds lovely\") before offering an alternative, which is a polite and coherent way to negotiate.\n- The discussion then focuses on the movie idea, with Speakers A and B asking clarifying questions and coming to a clear agreement.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses, contradictions, or abrupt topic shifts. The conversation flows logically and coherently from initiation to conclusion.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one minor overlap from [00:11 - 00:12] where Speaker B begins their turn while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This is a very brief, 1-second overlap. This type of overlap is common in natural conversation and indicates active listening and eagerness to contribute, rather than being disruptive. It does not lead to any breakdown in communication or confusion.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and natural, mimicking real-life conversation where speakers often respond almost immediately or after a very brief, unnoticeable pause. For example, Speaker A's \"Aww...\" starts right after Speaker B finishes, and subsequent turns also show immediate or near-immediate responses.\n\nOverall, the flow is very smooth and natural, with no elements that would hinder understanding or disrupt the conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--77834",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: What the hell was that, Jake? You just ruined my surprise for Sarah's\n[00:03 - 00:12] Speaker B: I'm really sorry, Addilyn. I didn't mean to ruin your party. I just got a little carried away. I was trying to help with the decorations, but I guess I messed up\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker A: Well, you did ruin it. And now I'm really angry with you.\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker B: I'm sorry. I'll make it up to you, I promise. Maybe I can help plan something else, or pitch in\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker A: You'd better. This is not the first time you've ruined something for me.\n[00:25 - 00:32] Speaker B: I know. And I'm really sorry about that. I'll do whatever it takes to make it up to you. I could even talk to the others and see if\n[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker A: Alright, Jake. I forgive you this time. But you need to be more careful in the future.\n[00:37 - 00:40] Speaker B: Yes, Addilyn. I will be more careful in the future.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Speaker B consistently addresses Speaker A's accusations, anger, and demands for amends.\n- Speaker B's initial apology and explanation at [00:03 - 00:12] directly responds to Speaker A's accusation of ruining the surprise.\n- Speaker B's promise to \"make it up\" and offers of help at [00:16 - 00:21] are a direct response to Speaker A's expressed anger and the damage done.\n- Speaker B's acknowledgment of past incidents and reiteration of commitment at [00:25 - 00:32] directly addresses Speaker A's comment about it \"not being the first time.\"\n- Finally, Speaker B's agreement to be more careful at [00:37 - 00:40] is a direct acceptance of Speaker A's forgiveness and warning.\nThe topic remains consistent throughout, focusing on Jake's mistake, Addilyn's anger, and Jake's attempts at reconciliation. There are no irrelevant tangents or non-sequiturs.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are several brief overlaps, all lasting exactly 1 second (e.g., [00:03 - 00:04], [00:11 - 00:12], [00:20 - 00:21], [00:31 - 00:32]). These are very short and appear natural in a conversation, especially one with emotional tension or urgency where speakers might briefly interject or cut each other off. They do not constitute \"extended overlaps\" or \"prolonged overlapping turns.\" There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The conversation flows naturally without any noticeable disruptions in turn-taking beyond these brief, acceptable overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--388",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I want to improve my handwriting, and I've practiced it for several weeks, but nothing seems to\n[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but have you tried different techniques or tools, like special pens or practice books? Sometimes the right tools can make a big difference.\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: I have tried some, but I was actually saying that nothing happened. You see, my handwriting is still bad.\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker B: Oh, come on. You know it's a long process, you have to be patient.\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker A: I know it, but I don't know when I can make it better.\n[00:26 - 00:35] Speaker B: Whatever you do, the most important is perseverance. So you have to hang on there, the longer, the better. Then some day, you will find you've already made a lot of noticeable improvements\n[00:35 - 00:41] Speaker A: Speaking of progress, do you think it helps to set specific goals, like improving a certain letter each week?\n[00:42 - 00:47] Speaker B: That could definitely help! But as I was saying, you'll find you've already made a lot of progress if you stick to it.\n[00:48 - 00:53] Speaker A: Yeah, you are right. I must stop complaining and stick to it every day.\n[00:53 - 00:56] Speaker B: Yeah! Where there is a will, there is a way.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A introduces a problem (handwriting not improving despite practice). Speaker B offers immediate, relevant suggestions (techniques, tools). Speaker A clarifies their frustration, and Speaker B consistently responds by emphasizing patience and perseverance, directly addressing Speaker A's doubts. Speaker A then proposes a relevant follow-up question about goal-setting, which Speaker B validates while circling back to the core theme of persistence. The conversation concludes with Speaker A accepting the advice and Speaker B providing a supportive, concluding remark. There are no instances of topic shifts, irrelevant responses, or illogical jumps. Each turn builds directly upon the previous one, maintaining a coherent and focused discussion.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is one brief overlap at `[00:04 - 00:05]` where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. However, Speaker B immediately acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which makes the overlap natural and polite, rather than disruptive or harmful. This is a common and acceptable occurrence in natural conversation. All other transitions between speakers are smooth, with very short or no pauses, indicating a continuous and fluid exchange. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected that would negatively impact the flow of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--489",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Do you think it is a good idea to go mountain biking?\n[00:03 - 00:11] Speaker B: Well, I'm sure it would be a fun experience. But mountain biking is usually a pretty intense sport. I hope you don't plan on going for a long ride, especially\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker A: Actually, I was thinking, do you have any tips for a beginner?\n[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker B: Haha, no, I'll only be going a couple of hours.\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker A: Oh good! Have fun!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nSpeaker A's first question (\"Do you think it is a good idea to go mountain biking?\") is clear.\nSpeaker B's first response (\"Well, I'm sure it would be a fun experience. But mountain biking is usually a pretty intense sport. I hope you don't plan on going for a long ride, especially\") is logically consistent and relevant, acknowledging the fun aspect while cautioning about intensity and potential duration.\nSpeaker A's second question (\"Actually, I was thinking, do you have any tips for a beginner?\") is a relevant follow-up, shifting from the general idea to practical advice for the activity, which is a logical progression given B's previous comments on intensity.\n**However, the dialogue severely breaks down with Speaker B's second response.** Speaker A explicitly asks for \"tips for a beginner.\" Speaker B's reply (\"Haha, no, I'll only be going a couple of hours.\") is completely irrelevant to the question asked. It appears Speaker B misinterpreted or misheard Speaker A's question, answering as if Speaker A was asking about *B's own mountain biking plans or duration*, rather than asking for general advice. This represents a significant logical inconsistency and a complete loss of topic coherence.\nSpeaker A's final response (\"Oh good! Have fun!\") further highlights this breakdown, as A has clearly abandoned the original intent of getting tips and is now just reacting to B's irrelevant statement.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThere is a brief overlap between Speaker B (ending at 00:11) and Speaker A (starting at 00:10). This 1-second overlap is brief and acceptable, indicating Speaker A might be eager to interject or take the turn. It does not qualify as a \"prolonged\" or \"extended\" overlap.\nThe pauses between turns are also brief and natural:\n*   [00:02 - 00:03]: 1 second pause, acceptable.\n*   [00:14 - 00:15]: 1 second pause, acceptable.\n*   [00:18 - 00:18]: 0 second pause, natural immediate turn-taking.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking in the conversation are fluent, with no long pauses or extended overlaps that would impede the flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--63842",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I can't believe I drank so much. I feel awful.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yeah, you look it. What were you\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: What happened? I don't know. I just wanted to have a good time and ended up getting really drunk.\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: Ryne, you have to be more careful. You could have hurt yourself or someone else if you had tried to\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker A: I know. I'm really sorry. I was just trying to unwind, but I get it—things could have gone really wrong.\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker B: Just be more careful next time, okay?\n[00:25 - 00:27] Speaker A: I will. I promise.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous turn, maintaining topic coherence throughout the conversation about Speaker A's excessive drinking and the consequences.\n- Speaker B's initial response \"Yeah, you look it. What were you\" directly acknowledges Speaker A's feeling awful and prompts for more information.\n- Speaker A's subsequent explanation \"What happened? I don't know. I just wanted to have a good time...\" provides the requested context.\n- Speaker B's warning about being careful is a logical consequence of Speaker A's confession.\n- Speaker A's apology and acknowledgment of risk show understanding and remorse, directly responding to B's caution.\n- The concluding exchange of B's admonition and A's promise clearly brings the topic to a resolution.\nThere are no instances where a speaker's response is irrelevant, confusing, or deviates from the conversation's core topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits minor issues in interactional fluency due to brief, but recurring, overlaps where Speaker B's turn is cut off by Speaker A.\n- At `[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B:` and `[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A:`, there is a 1-second overlap where Speaker A starts speaking before Speaker B finishes their sentence (\"What were you\"). This results in Speaker B's utterance being incomplete.\n- Similarly, at `[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B:` and `[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker A:`, there's another 1-second overlap, again with Speaker A interrupting Speaker B's incomplete sentence (\"if you had tried to\").\nWhile these overlaps are brief (1 second each) and not \"extended\" in duration, their repetitive nature and the consistent cutting off of Speaker B's sentences slightly disrupt the natural flow of turn-taking. However, they do not lead to significant communication breakdown or make the dialogue difficult to follow. There are no long pauses detected. Given the definition that \"brief overlaps... are acceptable, while prolonged... are harmful,\" these brief interruptions do not constitute \"significant issues\" but do prevent the interaction from being perfectly natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--137541",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I was just watching that soccer game on TV and I got really interested in it. I think I want to try joining a\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: That's awesome! Do you want to join a team or just play for fun?\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: I'm not sure. What do you think? Should I join a team or just play for fun?\n[00:15 - 00:25] Speaker B: Well, if you're just starting out, maybe you should join a team so you can learn from more experienced players. But if you're confident in your abilities, then playing for fun would be more flexible and\n[00:25 - 00:34] Speaker A: Actually, I think learning from experienced players sounds like a great idea. I'll join a team then. Do you know of any good teams I could try out for?\n[00:35 - 00:42] Speaker B: Yeah, there's a few adult leagues in the area that are always looking for new players. I can give you some information on them if you want.\n[00:42 - 00:44] Speaker A: That would be great, thank you!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the established topic of joining a soccer team.\n- Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's interest and offers relevant options (team vs. fun).\n- Speaker A then seeks advice based on these options, maintaining the focus.\n- Speaker B provides a thoughtful and balanced recommendation, which Speaker A then acts upon.\n- Speaker A's follow-up question about specific teams is a direct and logical progression.\n- Speaker B provides helpful and relevant information, and Speaker A closes the interaction with appropriate gratitude.\nThe conversation maintains strong topic coherence throughout, with no sudden shifts or irrelevant interjections.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates good fluency.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and natural, indicating active listening and smooth conversational flow.\n- There is one brief overlap detected at [00:06 - 00:09] where Speaker B begins \"That's awesome!\" while Speaker A is still saying \"joining a\". This is a short, 1-second overlap. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This particular overlap seems to be an enthusiastic, collaborative one, where Speaker B interjects to show immediate engagement, which is common in natural speech and does not disrupt the intelligibility or flow of the conversation. It does not qualify as an \"extended overlap\" that would harm the fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--397",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Well, Sir, we have asked all our guests to wear a jacket and a tie in our restaurant.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: I didn't know that, can I borrow a jacket and a tie from the\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but unfortunately, you can't borrow a jacket or a tie from others.\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker B: Oh, that means I have to return to the hotel and fetch mine. Will you put off the time of the conference?\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker A: Since you are the chairman, we'd like to offer you the convenience. What time will you come back after\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B: I'll probably be back at about 9:00 AM. Will that work?\n[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker A: We'll put it off to 9:30 AM. What about that?\n[00:30 - 00:33] Speaker B: 9:30 AM will be fine with me. Thank you.\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker A: You are welcome. By the way, how many people will attend the conference?\n[00:38 - 00:39] Speaker B: 15.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each turn directly addresses the previous speaker's utterance or naturally progresses the conversation's topic.\n\n*   Speaker A's initial statement about the dress code is clear.\n*   Speaker B's \"I didn't know that, can I borrow...\" is a direct and logical response to the dress code information.\n*   Speaker A's interruption to clarify the borrowing rule is immediately relevant and necessary.\n*   Speaker B's realization (\"Oh, that means I have to return...\") and subsequent question about the conference time is a logical consequence of the previous information and a sensible course of action for the character.\n*   Speaker A's offer of \"convenience\" due to Speaker B's chairman status and subsequent question about return time are perfectly relevant to Speaker B's request.\n*   Speaker B provides the requested time and asks for confirmation, which is relevant.\n*   Speaker A proposes a new time and seeks agreement, directly responding to B's suggestion.\n*   Speaker B's acceptance is a clear and relevant conclusion to the negotiation.\n*   The topic shift initiated by Speaker A (\"By the way, how many people will attend the conference?\") is a reasonable logistical follow-up question related to the overall context of the conference, even though it's a new sub-topic. It doesn't feel out of place or irrelevant to the broader situation.\n*   Speaker B's final answer is a direct response to this new question.\n\nOverall, the conversation maintains high topic coherence and logical flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n\n*   **Overlaps:**\n    *   [00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A starts at 00:07 while Speaker B finishes at 00:08. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A explicitly says \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and makes it a natural, albeit brief, interruption for clarification/denial. This is acceptable.\n    *   [00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B starts at 00:23 while Speaker A finishes at 00:24. This is also a 1-second overlap. This brief overlap is common in natural conversation, where one speaker anticipates the end of the other's utterance or shows eagerness to respond. This is acceptable.\n\n*   **Pauses:**\n    *   There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The dialogue flows smoothly from one speaker to the next without significant delays. The turn-taking is efficient and natural.\n\nThe presence of brief, natural overlaps and the absence of prolonged pauses contribute to excellent interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--139036",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: So, how was your rehearsal today?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: It was good. I feel really stretched out and ready to\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: Speaking of stretching, did you try that new warm-up routine we talked about last week?\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: Oh, yes, I did! It really helped me feel more relaxed now.\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: I know the feeling! I love being able to move gracefully and feeling my muscles being stretched.\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: Yeah, it's such a freeing feeling. I feel like I can really express myself when I'm dancing.\n[00:25 - 00:32] Speaker A: Absolutely! I think that's why I love ballet so much. It's just so beautiful to watch and to perform,\n[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker B: Sorry, I just remembered—did you get a chance to see the new choreography for next week's performance?\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker A: Yes, I did! And it's definitely as beautiful to do as it is to watch.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe conversation demonstrates excellent response relevance.\n- **[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A:** Asks about the rehearsal.\n- **[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B:** Directly answers about the rehearsal and mentions feeling \"stretched out.\"\n- **[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A:** Picks up on \"stretching\" as a keyword to transition to a related topic (warm-up routine). This is a natural and logical segue, showing active listening and topic coherence.\n- **[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B:** Directly answers the question about the warm-up routine.\n- **[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A:** Acknowledges Speaker B's feeling and elaborates on their own related experience with movement and stretching. This maintains the topic and shows empathy.\n- **[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B:** Continues the theme of the \"feeling,\" linking it to self-expression in dancing. This is a very coherent expansion of the topic.\n- **[00:25 - 00:32] Speaker A:** Agrees and connects the discussion to their love for ballet, which logically follows from dancing and expression.\n- **[00:32 - 00:37] Speaker B:** Initiates a topic shift about choreography but prefaces it with \"Sorry, I just remembered—,\" which indicates a conscious and natural transition to a related subject within the broad domain of dance/performance. This is a common and acceptable conversational move.\n- **[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker A:** Directly answers the question about the choreography and adds a positive comment.\n\nOverall, the dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence, with natural transitions and relevant responses throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There is one brief overlap: `[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B` and `[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A`. Speaker A begins speaking at 0:04 while Speaker B's turn ends at 0:05, creating a 1-second overlap. This is a very brief overlap, which is explicitly stated as acceptable (\"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\"). In this context, Speaker A is picking up on Speaker B's \"stretched out\" comment, which indicates active engagement rather than an unhelpful interruption.\n- There are no long pauses between turns. Transitions are either immediate or involve very brief, natural pauses. For example, Speaker B's turn at `[00:32]` starts exactly as Speaker A's ends, indicating a very smooth and natural handover.\n- The flow of the conversation feels natural and dynamic, indicating high interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--219",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: It's a lovely day, isn't it?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yes, the weather sure is nice today.\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: I love it when the weather is like this. Why don't we sit down outside and have our lunch?\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker B: That sounds like a good idea. The sky is clear, the sun is shining and there's a nice cool breeze, so it is not too windy to\n[00:16 - 00:24] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but speaking of the breeze, do you think it might get stronger later? It feels like it's picking up a bit.\n[00:24 - 00:35] Speaker B: Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. But I don't think so. I saw the weather report last night, and it said the weather should be fine all day. Oh, and I was going to say it's not too hot, which is perfect for sitting outside.\n[00:36 - 00:44] Speaker A: True, it's just right. I really miss the change of seasons like we have in Colorado, but I must admit, this sure is a nice spring day.\n[00:44 - 00:47] Speaker B: Hey, this spot in the shade looks really comfortable.\n[00:47 - 00:53] Speaker A: Okay. Hey, is that a dark cloud over there? Do you think it will rain after all?\n[00:54 - 00:57] Speaker B: I don't think so. The weather report didn't mention any rain.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly follows from or builds upon the previous one.\n- Speaker B's initial response (0:02-0:04) directly answers Speaker A's opening question.\n- Speaker A's suggestion for lunch outside (0:04-0:09) is a direct follow-up to the positive weather discussion.\n- Speaker B's agreement and elaboration (0:10-0:17) are highly relevant to the proposed activity.\n- Speaker A's interjection about the breeze (0:16-0:24) is logically tied to Speaker B's mention of \"breeze\" and a relevant concern for sitting outside, despite the overlap. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating awareness and maintaining coherence.\n- Speaker B's detailed response (0:24-0:35) addresses A's concern about the breeze, provides supporting evidence (weather report), and completes the previous thought about the temperature, showing good conversational memory and coherence.\n- Speaker A's reflection on seasons (0:36-0:44) is a natural, albeit slightly tangential, continuation of the weather theme, still connected to the 'nice spring day' concept.\n- Speaker B's shift to finding a spot (0:44-0:47) brings the conversation back to the immediate task of having lunch outside, which was the original plan.\n- Speaker A's new concern about a dark cloud (0:47-0:53) is a relevant observation related to their outdoor plans and the weather.\n- Speaker B's final response (0:54-0:57) directly addresses this new concern, maintaining logical consistency with previous references to the weather report.\nOverall, the topic coherence is excellent, with natural transitions and consistent follow-through on ideas.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- **Pauses:** There are small, natural pauses (1 second) between some turns (e.g., A to B at 0:01-0:02, B to A at 0:09-0:10, A to B at 0:35-0:36, A to B at 0:53-0:54). These are well within acceptable limits and contribute to a natural conversational rhythm. There are also instances of immediate turn-taking (0:24, 0:44, 0:47), which also indicates strong fluency.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one overlap identified:\n    - [00:16 - 00:24] Speaker A: Speaker A begins at 0:16 while Speaker B is still speaking until 0:17. This is a 1-second overlap. The prompt states \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This 1-second overlap is brief and is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker A (\"Sorry to cut in\"), which is a common and natural conversational repair strategy. It does not feel disruptive or prolonged, but rather indicates active listening and eagerness to contribute, typical of a natural conversation. It doesn't hinder the flow or understanding.\nNo prolonged pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps are present.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--614",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I have been trying to improve my home recently, especially my bedroom.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Oh really? I just bought a new TV for my living room.\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker A: Which one did you get?\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: It's a giant Samsung TV.\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker A: Are you excited about it? I just bought a new piano for my living room\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: A piano? That's amazing! Do you have any experience playing, or are you starting from scratch?\n[00:20 - 00:30] Speaker A: I'm starting from scratch. I had been looking at getting a piano for a long time. I'm really excited to learn how to play. Do you like art or painting?\n[00:31 - 00:40] Speaker B: Not really. I'd rather spend time watching TV, but I'm definitely interested to try out painting when I can. By the way, what kind of piano did you buy?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   **Logical Consistency & Topic Coherence:** The dialogue generally maintains logical consistency and topic coherence.\n    *   Speaker A introduces home improvement, which Speaker B responds to with their own home improvement (TV).\n    *   Speaker A follows up on the TV, and Speaker B answers appropriately.\n    *   Speaker A then introduces their own new purchase (piano), which is still within the broader theme of home improvements/personal acquisitions.\n    *   Speaker B picks up on the piano topic, expressing enthusiasm and asking a relevant follow-up question.\n    *   **Point of slight deviation:** At [00:20 - 00:30], Speaker A answers B's question about the piano and then abruptly shifts the topic to \"Do you like art or painting?\". While piano playing can be considered an art, the transition is not smooth and feels a bit out of place, interrupting the flow of discussion about the piano. This is a minor dip in topic coherence.\n    *   **Recovery:** Crucially, Speaker B handles this well at [00:31 - 00:40] by answering the \"art/painting\" question and then explicitly bringing the conversation back to the piano (\"By the way, what kind of piano did you buy?\"). This demonstrates good interactional competence and helps re-establish coherence.\nOverall, there are no instances of irrelevant or nonsensical responses. The minor coherence issue introduced by Speaker A is effectively managed by Speaker B, preventing it from becoming a significant problem.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Extended Overlaps:**\n    *   [00:08 - 00:09] Speaker A: \"Which one did you get?\" (ends 0:09) / [00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: \"It's a giant Samsung TV.\" (starts 0:09). This is a brief, 0-second overlap, typical of natural conversation where one speaker begins as the other finishes or slightly before.\n    *   [00:11 - 00:16] Speaker A: \"...for my living room\" (ends 0:16) / [00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: \"A piano? That's amazing!\" (starts 0:15). This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B interjects with an excited reaction, which is a common and natural conversational phenomenon, not an indication of poor fluency.\n    *   No prolonged or disruptive overlaps are present.\n*   **Long Pauses:**\n    *   [00:03 - 00:04]: 1-second pause. Natural.\n    *   [00:07 - 00:08]: 1-second pause. Natural.\n    *   [00:30 - 00:31]: 1-second pause. Natural.\n    *   All pauses are brief and contribute to a natural conversational rhythm. There are no long or awkward silences between turns.\nThe interaction flows very smoothly with appropriate turn-taking and natural brief overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--125764",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hey, Iyla.\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Hey, Kelsey. How are you?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm okay. Just feeling a little down today.\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Yeah, I know how that feels. It's been a tough few weeks for me trying to\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker A: Oh, really? What's been going on?\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: Just hanging out with friends and family, trying to keep busy. You know how it is.\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker A: Yeah, I do. It's just hard sometimes when you feel like you're stuck in one place and you can't seem to\n[00:23 - 00:32] Speaker B: Exactly, like you're trapped in your own thoughts. But sometimes we just have to deal with our problems head on and try to make the best of the situation we're in. That's all we can really do.\n[00:33 - 00:36] Speaker A: Yeah, I know. It's just hard sometimes.\n[00:36 - 00:40] Speaker B: I know it is. But you're strong and you'll get through this. I know you will.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Logical Consistency & Topic Coherence:** The dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency. Speaker A expresses feeling down, and Speaker B responds with empathy, relating it to their own tough experiences. The conversation naturally transitions to discussing the difficulties of coping and then to mutual support and encouragement. Each turn builds on the previous one, maintaining a clear and coherent topic throughout. Speaker B's response at [00:13 - 00:17] about \"hanging out with friends and family, trying to keep busy\" is a relevant coping mechanism, even if it doesn't explicitly detail *why* their weeks were tough. This subtle shift is still within the realm of the established topic of dealing with difficulties. Speaker B's later empathetic response and advice (\"Exactly, like you're trapped in your own thoughts. But sometimes we just have to deal with our problems head on...\") further solidify the logical and empathetic flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Extended Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps:\n*   [00:10 - 00:12] Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing their sentence. (1-second overlap)\n*   [00:23 - 00:32] Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. (1-second overlap)\nBoth overlaps are very brief (1 second each) and do not appear to hinder comprehension or indicate a breakdown in turn-taking. They are characteristic of natural, engaged conversation where speakers anticipate each other or chime in quickly. The evaluation criteria state, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these examples fall into that category.\n**Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The transitions between speakers are smooth and natural, indicating good interactional rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--213",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Where is that cool guy, Dick? I haven't seen him for two weeks.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: He's been sick since he came back from a business\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: From Italy, right? I remember he mentioned he was planning a trip there.\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B: Yes, exactly. It's been a rough few weeks for him.\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: Bummer, I'm sorry to hear that. Is he better now?\n[00:16 - 00:24] Speaker B: Yes, Doctor William said that he could come back to work ASAP. By the way, did I mention that he had to postpone some important meetings because of this?\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: Oh, I didn't know that. Do you think he'll need help catching up when he returns?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building upon the shared topic of Dick's absence and illness.\n- Speaker B's initial response (0:04-0:06) directly answers Speaker A's question.\n- Speaker A's inference about Italy (0:05-0:09) demonstrates active listening and prior knowledge, coherently completing Speaker B's thought.\n- Speaker B confirms A's inference and adds more relevant context (0:10-0:12).\n- Speaker A expresses empathy and asks a direct, relevant follow-up about Dick's recovery (0:13-0:16).\n- Speaker B answers the recovery question and naturally introduces related information about postponed meetings (0:16-0:24). This is a coherent expansion of the topic.\n- Speaker A's final turn acknowledges the new information and asks a relevant question about the consequences for Dick's return (0:24-0:29).\nThe conversation maintains logical consistency and topic coherence throughout, without any irrelevant detours or abrupt shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural and appropriate.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap between Speaker A (0:05-0:09) and Speaker B (0:04-0:06). Speaker A begins speaking at 0:05 while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence until 0:06. This 1-second overlap is not prolonged or disruptive; rather, it indicates active listening and anticipation, as Speaker A correctly infers and completes Speaker B's thought (\"from a business [trip to Italy]\"). This type of brief, cooperative overlap is common in natural conversation and enhances fluency. Another point where turns meet is at 0:16, where Speaker B starts exactly as Speaker A finishes, which is ideal for smooth turn-taking.\n- **Pauses:** There are two short pauses, one of 1 second between 0:09 and 0:10, and another of 1 second between 0:12 and 0:13. These are small, natural hesitations and do not constitute \"long pauses\" that would harm fluency.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking are smooth, reflecting a natural and engaged conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--638",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, what are you reading these days?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Well, I'm reading a novel from last semester. It's called The Road.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker A: Is it good?\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: I really enjoyed it. It was actually one of the few books that stuck with me long\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I just remembered, isn't that book quite intense? How do you feel about its themes while reading?\n[00:18 - 00:28] Speaker B: It is intense, but that's part of what makes it so gripping. I haven't mentioned yet that it's also beautifully written. That's awesome. It's funny, but I kind of really like reading when I travel.\n[00:28 - 00:36] Speaker A: That's definitely true for me too. Reading on vacation is almost like a break from the every day routine, and\n[00:35 - 00:41] Speaker B: Oh, absolutely! And do you find that you choose different genres depending on where you're traveling to?\n[00:41 - 00:45] Speaker A: Yeah! I also think it's relaxing to read about someplace I've never been.\n[00:46 - 00:49] Speaker B: Yeah, I totally agree with that. It almost feels like a trip to that place.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence throughout. Speaker A initiates the conversation about reading, and Speaker B provides a direct and relevant answer. Subsequent turns flow naturally, with A asking follow-up questions about the book's quality and themes, and B responding directly. A slight topic shift occurs when Speaker B mentions \"reading when I travel\" at [00:28]. However, this shift is still within the broader domain of \"reading habits\" and is immediately picked up and elaborated upon by Speaker A, demonstrating high coherence. Speaker B then poses a related question about genres and travel, which Speaker A responds to with a related, albeit not direct, idea about reading about new places. This shows that while the direct question wasn't answered, the topic remained coherent and was expanded upon. Overall, the responses are consistently relevant, and the conversation maintains a logical flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses that would disrupt the flow of the conversation. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  [00:11 - 00:12] where Speaker A overlaps Speaker B. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which makes it a natural and polite interjection rather than a harmful one.\n2.  [00:35 - 00:36] where Speaker B overlaps Speaker A. This overlap is very brief and occurs as Speaker B enthusiastically agrees (\"Oh, absolutely!\") and quickly follows up with a question, which is a common and natural characteristic of engaged, flowing conversation.\nNeither overlap is prolonged or disruptive. These brief overlaps contribute to the natural, dynamic feel of the dialogue, indicating an engaged and active exchange between speakers.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--8352",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, I'm really sorry about what happened at the party last night.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: What are you talking about?\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: I know I said I would be there for you, and I didn't show up\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker B: Oh, Jaylani, don't worry about it. I know you would have been there if you could have. It's not your fault that you couldn't make it.\n[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker A: But I promised you that I would be there, and I hate that\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker B: Jaylani, stop beating yourself up over this. It's not a big deal, really. Forget about it and let's move on.\n[00:25 - 00:27] Speaker A: Okay, you're right. I'm sorry.\n[00:28 - 00:30] Speaker B: Don't be sorry. Just forget about it, okay?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates with an apology, and Speaker B's initial \"What are you talking about?\" is a natural request for clarification, showing they might not consider A's absence a significant issue or need context. Once Speaker A clarifies, Speaker B's responses are consistently empathetic, reassuring, and focused on dismissing Speaker A's guilt (\"don't worry about it,\" \"it's not your fault,\" \"stop beating yourself up,\" \"it's not a big deal,\" \"forget about it\"). The topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on Speaker A's absence from the party and Speaker B's subsequent forgiveness and reassurance. There are no abrupt topic shifts or misunderstandings that aren't quickly resolved.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent fluency. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural and continuous flow of conversation. One brief overlap occurs from [0:17 - 0:18] where Speaker B begins to speak while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This overlap lasts approximately 1 second and is a natural occurrence in a conversation where one speaker (B) is trying to interject to reassure or stop the other (A) from further self-recrimination. It does not disrupt the conversation or indicate any communication breakdown; rather, it adds to the realism of the interaction, showing Speaker B's eagerness to comfort Speaker A. As per the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this one fits that description perfectly.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--109352",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm glad you're here. I wanted to talk to you about something that's\n[00:03 - 00:03] Speaker B: What is it?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: I was wondering if you'd be interested in going out for coffee with me sometime.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: Yeah, I'd love to. When were you thinking? Maybe\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker A: How about tomorrow afternoon?\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker B: That sounds great. I'll see you then.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logically coherent. Speaker B's \"What is it?\" directly follows Speaker A's introduction of a topic. Speaker A then clarifies the topic. Speaker B's acceptance and follow-up question (\"When were you thinking?\") are perfectly relevant to Speaker A's invitation. Speaker A's suggestion of \"tomorrow afternoon\" directly answers B's question, and Speaker B's final confirmation closes the interaction logically. The conversation flows naturally and the topic is maintained throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency. There are two instances of brief overlaps (one at [00:03 - 00:03] where B starts while A is finishing, and another at [00:10 - 00:12] where A starts while B is finishing). Both overlaps are approximately 1 second and seem to indicate active listening and eagerness to respond, which is natural in casual conversation, rather than disruptive. There is a small pause of 1 second between Speaker A's turn ending at 00:08 and Speaker B's turn starting at 00:09, which is also natural and not prolonged. Based on the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" which describes the interaction here. There are no \"extended overlaps\" or \"long pauses.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--561",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: How are you doing?\n[00:01 - 00:09] Speaker B: I'm doing great, thanks for asking. I have never cooked before, and I'm kind of nervous to start, but I think I'm going to have to learn eventually. Do you have any tips?\n[00:09 - 00:27] Speaker A: Oh my gosh! I've been cooking since I was a teenager, and I love it! I have tons of tips, but I think the biggest thing is just not to worry too much. Cooking is something we do because it makes us happy. I don't know why it seems to get so complicated sometimes, but it doesn't have to be\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but what if I make a mistake? How do you handle that?\n[00:31 - 00:44] Speaker A: Mistakes are part of learning. You just need to keep trying and you'll get better. Speaking of which, I was about to say it doesn't have to be perfect. Yeah, I guess cooking at home for the first time is a big step.\n[00:44 - 00:45] Speaker B: It can be!\n[00:45 - 00:47] Speaker A: What kind of recipes do you like to cook?\n[00:48 - 00:53] Speaker B: Well, I'm pretty flexible. I love to make seafood, and I'm starting to get into Thai cuisine. The\n[00:52 - 00:57] Speaker A: Thai cuisine is amazing! Have you tried making Thai curries at home?\n[00:57 - 01:01] Speaker B: Not yet, but I love Thai food! I love Thai curries and sticky rice.\n[01:02 - 01:10] Speaker A: You have good taste. You should go to a Thai restaurant and try some of their dishes. It will be really different, but that's kind of the point.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance throughout. Speaker B's initial response directly answers Speaker A's greeting and immediately introduces a relevant topic (cooking) with a clear question. Speaker A's subsequent responses are consistently on-topic, offering advice and reassurance about cooking. When Speaker B interjects at [00:27], it's a direct and logical follow-up question related to A's previous point about not worrying too much. Speaker A addresses this concern directly, linking it back to previous advice. The transition at [00:45] to \"What kind of recipes do you like to cook?\" is a natural progression within the overall theme of cooking for a beginner. Speaker B's answer is precise and introduces \"Thai cuisine,\" which Speaker A picks up on enthusiastically with a relevant follow-up question. All turns demonstrate logical consistency and maintain strong topic coherence, with speakers actively building on each other's contributions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good. There are two instances of brief overlaps, which are explicitly mentioned or clearly visible in the timestamps but do not hinder the flow or understanding of the conversation.\n1.  At [00:27 - 00:31], Speaker B says, \"Sorry to jump in,\" indicating an awareness of the brief overlap with Speaker A's preceding turn. This type of interruption is common in natural conversation and often signals engagement rather than disruption. It's not a prolonged overlap.\n2.  At [00:52 - 00:57], Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B's previous turn technically ends at [00:53]. This is a very brief, 1-second overlap that suggests Speaker A's enthusiasm (picking up on \"Thai cuisine\") and active listening, rather than an impediment to communication.\n\nThere are also small pauses, for example, between [00:47] and [00:48], and [01:01] and [01:02]. These are natural conversational pauses and not \"long pauses\" that would indicate awkwardness or a breakdown in fluency. Overall, the conversation flows very naturally with appropriate turn-taking and demonstrates high interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--518",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, how's it going?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: I'm doing well! How about you?\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm doing great! I've been listening to music a lot recently. What have you been listening to\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but what kind of music have you been into lately?\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker A: I've been into a mix of genres, but right now I'm listening to \"Jubilee\" by Leonard Cohen.\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker B: That sounds like a beautiful song. What's your favorite song to listen to\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker A: Actually, before I answer that, I'm curious about your thoughts on Leonard Cohen's style.\n[00:27 - 00:37] Speaker B: I think his style is very unique and poetic. But back to your favorite song, I love listening to \"Eleanor Rigby\" by The Beatles. It's one of my favorite songs of all time.\n[00:37 - 00:40] Speaker A: Oh, it sounds like you have really great taste in music!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and topic coherence. Speakers consistently respond to each other's turns in a logical and understandable manner. The conversation flows naturally from initial greetings to a discussion about music.\n\n*   **[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker A** introduces a new topic (\"listening to music\") and asks Speaker B for their input, maintaining coherence.\n*   **[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B**'s question directly relates to Speaker A's statement about music.\n*   **[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker A** directly answers Speaker B's question.\n*   **[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker B** acknowledges Speaker A's answer and asks a follow-up question, staying on topic.\n*   **[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker A** defers the previous question to ask for Speaker B's opinion on a related aspect (Leonard Cohen's style), which is a natural conversational turn to broaden the discussion.\n*   **[00:27 - 00:37] Speaker B** answers Speaker A's deferred question first (\"I think his style is very unique and poetic\"). There is a slight logical inconsistency in the phrasing that follows: \"But back to your favorite song, I love listening to 'Eleanor Rigby' by The Beatles.\" Speaker B uses \"your favorite song\" but then immediately states *their own* favorite song. While the phrasing is slightly muddled, the intent to share *their* favorite song (prompted by B's own earlier question to A) is clear in context, and Speaker A's subsequent response confirms understanding. This is a minor phrasing awkwardness rather than a significant breakdown in logical consistency or topic coherence, as the topic remains music and favorite songs.\n*   **[00:37 - 00:40] Speaker A** responds positively to Speaker B's mentioned song, indicating clear understanding despite the minor phrasing issue from Speaker B.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency with only minor, acceptable deviations.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap between **[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker A** and **[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B**. Speaker B immediately acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and politeness, making it a non-disruptive, natural interjection rather than an extended or harmful overlap.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long or disruptive pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and natural, maintaining a smooth conversational rhythm. For instance, the 1-second pause between 0:18 and 0:19 is natural and brief.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking contribute to a highly fluent interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--78987",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey babe, how are you feeling today?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: I'm feeling great today, thanks for asking. How about how about\n[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker A: Actually, I'm feeling good as well. I had a great workout this morning and I'm just enjoying the day. So what have you been up to?\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: Not much, just hanging out and relaxing. I did some light cardio and then just caught up\n[00:17 - 00:25] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I just remembered—did you manage to stretch after your workout? I know you mentioned wanting to focus on that more.\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker B: Oh, totally slipped my mind to mention that! I did stretch a bit after the cardio, and then just chilled.\n[00:32 - 00:38] Speaker A: That sounds like a good day. I'm glad you're taking it easy, you deserve it after all your hard work.\n[00:39 - 00:40] Speaker B: Thanks, babe. I appreciate it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building upon the conversation's flow.\n- Speaker A's initial greeting is met with a direct answer and a reciprocal question from Speaker B.\n- Speaker A then answers Speaker B's question and smoothly transitions to asking Speaker B about their day, maintaining topic coherence.\n- Speaker B provides a relevant update on their activities, which prompts Speaker A to recall a specific detail about B's workout routine (stretching), showing active listening and memory of prior conversations. This is a very strong indicator of logical consistency and deep engagement.\n- Speaker B directly addresses A's specific question about stretching.\n- Speaker A offers supportive and relevant closing remarks, which Speaker B acknowledges appropriately.\nThere are no instances where a speaker's response is out of topic, illogical, or inconsistent with the preceding conversation. The dialogue progresses naturally and coherently.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally very good, but there are some minor points to consider regarding overlaps and pauses:\n- **[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: I'm feeling great today, thanks for asking. How about how about** - The \"how about how about\" indicates a slight verbal stumble, but not a significant pause or fluency issue. It's a common natural conversational filler/repetition.\n- **[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker A: Actually, I'm feeling good as well...** There is a brief overlap at 0:05 where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing \"how about how about\". This is a very common and natural occurrence in fluid conversation, indicating eagerness to respond rather than an interruption. It does not disrupt the flow.\n- **[00:17 - 00:25] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I just remembered—did you manage to stretch after your workout?** - There is an overlap at 0:17 where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B's sentence (\"just caught up\"). Speaker A immediately acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which mitigates the abruptness and maintains politeness and fluency. This indicates a natural, albeit slightly impolite, conversational move that is then repaired. It's an active and engaged interruption, not a detrimental one.\n- **No long pauses between turns** are observed. The turn-taking is swift and responsive throughout the dialogue.\n\nWhile there are two instances of overlap, they are brief and either naturally occurring (Speaker A responding quickly to B's self-correction) or acknowledged and mitigated (Speaker A's apology for interruption). Neither of these overlaps extends to a problematic degree, nor do they hinder the intelligibility or flow of the conversation. There are no prolonged pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--406",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Do you have any advice for me?\n[00:02 - 00:10] Speaker B: Just keep working hard and you will get there. I recently met with a professor that I would like to work with, but I don't have a connection with them yet. But you never know what will come up\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I was wondering, how did you manage to meet with that professor in the first place? Any tips for networking?\n[00:18 - 00:27] Speaker B: I attended a seminar where they were speaking and approached them afterward. It's all about being proactive. But I was saying, you never know what will happen. Thank you!\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker A: That's great advice. Are you thinking of going to grad school?\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker B: I want to! I just want to learn as much as I can and have the time of my life!\n[00:36 - 00:43] Speaker A: That sounds like a solid plan. By the way, you mentioned earlier that you don't have a connection with the professor yet. Have you thought about reaching out\n[00:42 - 00:48] Speaker B: Oh, definitely! I'm planning to follow up with an email to keep the conversation going. Well, good luck!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good response relevance and logical consistency overall.\n\n*   **Speaker B's initial response (00:02-00:10):** Speaker B provides general advice (\"keep working hard\") which is relevant, but then immediately pivots to a personal anecdote about meeting a professor. While this anecdote serves to illustrate \"you never know what will come up,\" it makes the initial advice feel a bit tangential to Speaker B's primary focus.\n*   **Speaker A's follow-up (00:10-00:17):** Speaker A's interruption, while acknowledged, is highly relevant, focusing directly on the new topic Speaker B introduced (meeting the professor) and asking for specific networking tips. This shows active listening and interest.\n*   **Speaker B's second response (00:18-00:27):** Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's question about meeting the professor, providing a clear networking tip (\"being proactive\"). However, the abrupt return to \"But I was saying, you never know what will happen. Thank you!\" feels a bit forced and the \"Thank you!\" is out of place, making it slightly less natural.\n*   **Speaker A's transition (00:27-00:31):** Speaker A acknowledges the advice and then smoothly transitions to a related but new topic (\"Are you thinking of going to grad school?\"). This is a logical progression given the previous discussion about professors and career paths.\n*   **Speaker B's response (00:31-00:35):** Speaker B's answer is directly relevant and enthusiastic.\n*   **Speaker A's follow-up (00:36-00:43):** Speaker A demonstrates good recall by bringing the conversation back to the unresolved point Speaker B made earlier about not having a connection with the professor, showing engagement and follow-through.\n*   **Speaker B's final response (00:42-00:48):** Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's question. However, the concluding \"Well, good luck!\" again feels somewhat abrupt and like a premature closing from Speaker B, especially since Speaker A had just asked a question, implying the conversation was still active.\n\nIn summary, the core relevance is maintained, and topics generally cohere or transition naturally. Speaker A is very good at following up and keeping the conversation on track. Speaker B's responses are sometimes a bit self-focused or conclude abruptly, but they don't break the logical flow significantly.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is generally very good, with minimal pauses and only one very brief, natural overlap.\n\n*   **Pauses:**\n    *   There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's first turn (00:01) and Speaker B's (00:02), which is perfectly acceptable and natural.\n    *   Similarly, there is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's second turn (00:17) and Speaker B's (00:18), also natural.\n    *   The transitions between Speaker B (00:27) and Speaker A (00:27), and Speaker A (00:31) and Speaker B (00:31) are seamless (0-second pause), indicating a smooth, responsive flow.\n    *   The pause between Speaker B (00:35) and Speaker A (00:36) is 1 second, again, natural.\n*   **Overlaps:**\n    *   There is a very brief overlap from 00:42 to 00:43 between Speaker A and Speaker B. Speaker B begins their response (\"Oh, definitely!\") just as Speaker A is finishing the last word of their question (\"reaching out\"). This is a common and natural occurrence in fluent conversation, often indicating eagerness to respond, and does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap. It does not disrupt the conversation or cause confusion.\n\nOverall, the pacing is natural, and there are no instances of long, awkward pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--69872",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm so glad I was finally able to fix my computer. It was really starting to act up, especially\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: What was it doing exactly? Was it freezing up or something else?\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: Yeah, it was freezing and running really slow. I just restarted it and that seemed to do the trick.\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker B: Well, that's good. Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best.\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker A: I know. I was starting to get really frustrated with it, but I'm just glad that it's fixed because I\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker B: Did you check if there were any updates pending? Sometimes that can cause issues too.\n[00:30 - 00:37] Speaker A: Oh, I didn't think about that. I might need to check for updates just to be sure everything's running smoothly.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's questions (\"What was it doing exactly? Was it freezing up or something else?\") directly follow Speaker A's initial statement about their computer acting up, showing keen interest and clarifying the issue. Speaker A's subsequent response (\"Yeah, it was freezing and running really slow. I just restarted it...\") directly answers B's questions. Speaker B's acknowledgment (\"Well, that's good. Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best.\") and Speaker A's agreement maintain the flow. Speaker B then introduces a new, highly relevant troubleshooting suggestion (\"Did you check if there were any updates pending?\"), which Speaker A acknowledges as a valuable point (\"Oh, I didn't think about that. I might need to check for updates...\"). The conversation stays focused on the computer issue and its resolution/maintenance throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two brief overlaps (0:05 - 0:06 and 0:25 - 0:26), both lasting only 1 second. These are very common in natural conversation, indicating active listening and turn-taking without being disruptive or prolonged. Similarly, the pauses between turns (0:08 - 0:09 and 0:29 - 0:30) are also brief, lasting only 1 second each. These small pauses are natural for processing information or formulating a response and do not impede the conversational flow. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would indicate a breakdown in communication or an unnatural interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--248",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi Tony, I feel so tired.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Oh, I'm sorry, is there something wrong?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: Yes, Christmas is coming, and it seems everything has been going wrong lately.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: Here, sit down and tell me about it.\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: Well recently, I've had to be at work by 8:00 AM. You know, I work in the toy department at the shopping center.\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B: Ah, yes, of course, it's much busier than usual. Everyone's shopping for gifts for\n[00:22 - 00:38] Speaker A: Exactly! And yesterday I overslept and I was 10 minutes late. At 10:00 o'clock, the front doors of the shopping center open and a flood of shoppers walked into the toy department, soon people were shouting, pushing me around or making angry demands.\n[00:38 - 00:43] Speaker B: Oh, that's awful. But wait, you mentioned Christmas shopping earlier—what did you want to say about that?\n[00:44 - 00:51] Speaker A: Oh, right! I was going to say, the crowds are larger than ever this year, and it's been overwhelming trying to manage everything.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates by expressing fatigue, and Speaker B consistently responds empathetically and encourages elaboration (\"is there something wrong?\", \"tell me about it\"). Speaker A's narrative about work stress and Christmas crowds is coherent and directly addresses the initial problem. Speaker B's interjection at [00:38] (\"But wait, you mentioned Christmas shopping earlier—what did you want to say about that?\") is a good example of maintaining topic coherence by recalling an earlier, unelaborated point from Speaker A, ensuring the conversation doesn't stray or leave a thought unfinished. Speaker A's \"Oh, right!\" and subsequent explanation at [00:44] show a successful re-engagement with the previous thread, tying it back to the overall theme of being overwhelmed.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns; responses are timely and keep the conversation flowing naturally. There is one brief overlap detected at [00:22-00:23] where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing a thought. This is a very short overlap (1 second) and falls under the category of \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\" as per the criteria. It does not disrupt the flow or indicate a breakdown in communication, but rather a naturalistic conversational rhythm. There are no extended overlaps or long silences that would harm the fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--43978",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Oh no, the thunder is getting louder. I feel my heart racing and my hands shaking. I'm starting to feel short of breath, and\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: Cassandra, focus on my voice. Try to breathe deeply. In through your nose, out through your mouth. Can you do that for me?\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker A: I'm trying, but it's just so scary! What if the house gets hit by lightning?\n[00:19 - 00:27] Speaker B: We'll be fine. The house is well-protected against lightning strikes. Just try to focus on something else and the storm will be over before you know it.\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker A: Alright. I'm going to go make some tea. Would you like to\n[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker B: Wait, are you sure you're okay to do that? Maybe you should sit down for a bit until you feel calmer.\n[00:37 - 00:41] Speaker A: I think making the tea will help me calm down. I'll be careful. Would you like some?\n[00:42 - 00:44] Speaker B: Yes, please. That would be great. Thank you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A expresses distress, and Speaker B consistently provides calming advice, reassurance, and expresses concern. Each turn builds naturally on the previous one, addressing the immediate emotional state and practical needs of Speaker A.\n\n*   **[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A** describes anxiety symptoms, setting the context for the interaction.\n*   **[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B** responds directly to the reported anxiety by offering a breathing exercise, which is a highly relevant calming technique.\n*   **[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker A** escalates their fear, asking a specific \"what if\" question related to the storm.\n*   **[00:19 - 00:27] Speaker B** directly addresses this specific fear with reassurance and suggests distraction, maintaining topic coherence.\n*   **[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker A** proposes an action (making tea) as a coping mechanism, a logical next step for someone trying to regain control.\n*   **[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker B** expresses relevant concern for Speaker A's safety while in an anxious state.\n*   **[00:37 - 00:41] Speaker A** reiterates their coping strategy and extends the offer for tea, showing their decision and care.\n*   **[00:42 - 00:44] Speaker B** accepts the offer, indicating successful de-escalation and continued support.\n\nThe conversation flows logically, and all responses are appropriate to the context and the speakers' roles (anxious person and supportive helper).\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good interactional fluency, with two notable overlaps.\n\n*   **[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B** starts speaking at 0:07 while **Speaker A** is still speaking until 0:08. This is a very brief overlap (1 second) and often occurs naturally in conversations where one speaker anticipates the other's completion or interjects with an urgent response, especially in a situation where one speaker is distressed and the other is trying to intervene quickly. This is not prolonged and does not hinder understanding.\n*   **[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker B** starts speaking at 0:30 while **Speaker A** is still speaking until 0:31. Again, this is a very brief overlap (1 second). Speaker B interjects to express concern, which is an immediate and natural response to Speaker A's proposed action. It doesn't seem to disrupt the flow or cause confusion.\n\nThere are no long pauses between turns. The turn-taking is prompt and natural, reflecting an engaged and supportive interaction. The brief overlaps contribute to the naturalness rather than detract from it.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--44051",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm sorry, I'm so lost. I don't know where I was supposed\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Where were you headed?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: I was on a trip and got turned around. I have no idea where I am.\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: Let's take a look at your map then. Maybe we can figure out where you are and how to get you\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker A: Actually, I don't even have a map. I was relying on my phone, but the battery died.\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker B: Oh, that makes things a bit trickier. Do you remember any landmarks or signs you passed recently?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building coherently on the established topic of Speaker A being lost and seeking help.\n*   Speaker B's initial question \"Where were you headed?\" is a direct and logical response to Speaker A's distress about being lost.\n*   Speaker A's explanation \"I was on a trip and got turned around. I have no idea where I am.\" directly addresses Speaker B's question and elaborates on their predicament.\n*   Speaker B's suggestion \"Let's take a look at your map then. Maybe we can figure out where you are and how to get you\" is a practical and relevant offering of assistance.\n*   Speaker A's clarification \"Actually, I don't even have a map. I was relying on my phone, but the battery died.\" is crucial information that directly responds to Speaker B's suggestion, explaining why it won't work and adding another layer to their problem.\n*   Speaker B's follow-up question \"Oh, that makes things a bit trickier. Do you remember any landmarks or signs you passed recently?\" shows adaptation to the new information and continues the problem-solving effort with a relevant alternative approach.\nAll turns maintain logical consistency and topic coherence, advancing the conversation towards a resolution.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps:\n    *   `[00:03 - 00:04]` Speaker B overlaps Speaker A for 1 second. Speaker B's question \"Where were you headed?\" is a direct, quick follow-up to Speaker A's partial sentence \"I don't know where I was supposed\". This indicates active listening and eagerness to help, rather than an interruptive overlap.\n    *   `[00:14 - 00:15]` Speaker A overlaps Speaker B for 1 second. Speaker A starts to respond to Speaker B's map suggestion immediately. This is a natural, anticipatory overlap that serves to quickly provide crucial information (\"Actually, I don't even have a map\"). Both overlaps are brief and do not hinder the flow or understanding; they make the conversation sound natural and engaged.\n*   **Pauses:** There are short pauses between turns:\n    *   `[00:09 - 00:10]` (1 second pause between Speaker A and Speaker B)\n    *   `[00:19 - 00:20]` (1 second pause between Speaker A and Speaker B)\nThese pauses are very short (1 second each) and are well within the acceptable range for natural conversation, allowing for processing and turn-taking without feeling awkward or prolonged.\nOverall, the turn-taking is smooth, and the brief overlaps and short pauses contribute to a natural and fluid interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--66876",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey boss, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much, what's up with you?\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker A: I'm feeling really motivated today. I want to achieve my goals and make a significant impact\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker B: That's awesome to hear! What specific goals do you have in mind to make a difference?\n[00:13 - 00:24] Speaker A: Well, I want to increase my productivity and efficiency, and contribute more to the team. I also want to learn new skills and knowledge so that I can be even more effective in\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker B: Speaking of learning new skills, do you have any particular area in mind that you want to focus on first?\n[00:28 - 00:36] Speaker A: I was thinking about improving my project management skills, but I also want to explore data analysis to be more versatile.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance throughout. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining consistent topic coherence.\n*   Speaker B's initial response \"Not much, what's up with you?\" is a standard and relevant reply to a greeting.\n*   When Speaker A expresses motivation and goals, Speaker B's follow-up question \"What specific goals do you have in mind to make a difference?\" directly addresses and elaborates on Speaker A's statement about \"achieving goals and making a significant impact.\"\n*   Speaker A then provides specific examples of their goals (productivity, efficiency, contributing, learning new skills).\n*   Speaker B's subsequent question \"Speaking of learning new skills, do you have any particular area in mind that you want to focus on first?\" perfectly picks up on a key point from Speaker A's previous turn, demonstrating active listening and natural conversational progression.\n*   Finally, Speaker A's response about \"improving my project management skills\" and \"exploring data analysis\" directly answers Speaker B's specific question.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses, sudden topic shifts, or misunderstandings. The conversation builds naturally and logically.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n*   There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The transitions are prompt and natural.\n*   There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    *   [00:09 - 00:10]: Speaker A's turn ends at 00:10, and Speaker B starts at 00:09, resulting in a 1-second overlap.\n    *   [00:23 - 00:24]: Speaker A's turn ends at 00:24, and Speaker B starts at 00:23, also a 1-second overlap.\nThe evaluation criteria state that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" These 1-second overlaps are clearly brief and fall within the acceptable range for natural conversation, often indicating active listening or enthusiastic turn-taking rather than disruptive interruption. They do not hinder the flow or understanding of the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--129333",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey, I'm sorry your lunch plans fell through. I know you were really looking forward to seeing your friend.\n[00:06 - 00:14] Speaker B: Yeah, I was really disappointed. We were supposed to meet up at this new restaurant that just opened, but she had to cancel last minute because\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker A: Oh no, did she say why she had to cancel? I hope everything's okay with her.\n[00:18 - 00:28] Speaker B: Yeah, she had a work emergency that came up unexpectedly. It was just bad timing. I was really looking forward to trying out the new restaurant, but now I'll have to wait until another time.\n[00:29 - 00:36] Speaker A: Well, maybe we can go there together sometime? That way you won't have to wait for your friend and you can still try the food.\n[00:36 - 00:40] Speaker B: Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Thanks for suggesting it, Dariela.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, contributing to a coherent and natural conversation flow.\n- Speaker A initiates with empathy, which Speaker B responds to by explaining their disappointment and the reason.\n- Speaker A's follow-up question about the cancellation reason and concern for the friend is a logical and empathetic continuation.\n- Speaker B provides a clear and relevant explanation for the cancellation.\n- Speaker A then offers a practical and thoughtful solution related to Speaker B's expressed disappointment about the restaurant.\n- Speaker B accepts the suggestion with gratitude, showing a natural and positive progression of the interaction.\nThere are no instances of topic shifts, irrelevant information, or contradictory statements. All responses maintain logical consistency and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and natural, indicating a smooth conversation. For instance, the transition from Speaker A's first turn to Speaker B's (00:05 to 00:06) is only 1 second, which is normal.\n- There is one brief overlap: Speaker B speaks until 00:14, and Speaker A begins at 00:13. This 1-second overlap is very brief and common in natural conversation, often indicating active listening or a polite interjection rather than an interruption. It is well within the acceptable limits mentioned in the criteria (\"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\").\nOverall, the dialogue feels natural and unhindered by fluency issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--80485",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hey, I wanted to tell you what happened today. I was at the store and I saw a woman drop her keys, and\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker B: Oh no, what did you do?\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: I picked it up and returned it to her, but I accidentally left my own wallet in the process.\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker B: That's terrible! Did you lose anything important?\n[00:16 - 00:25] Speaker A: Yeah, my driver's license and some cash. But the woman was really nice about it and she gave me her contact information in case I needed any help\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: Wait, did she offer to help you in any way?\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker A: Not directly, but she said I could reach out if I needed anything. I haven't contacted her yet, though.\n[00:34 - 00:39] Speaker B: That's good that she was understanding. Have you been able to get a new driver's license yet?\n[00:39 - 00:48] Speaker A: Not yet, but I'm going to go tomorrow morning as soon as the DMV opens. Hopefully, everything will go smoothly and I'll be able to get my license back quickly.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's questions and comments always directly follow from what Speaker A has just said, showing active listening and a clear understanding of the narrative. For example, Speaker B's \"Oh no, what did you do?\" (00:05) immediately responds to Speaker A setting up the story. Later, Speaker B's \"Wait, did she offer to help you in any way?\" (00:24) directly probes Speaker A's mention of receiving contact information. The conversation progresses naturally from the incident, to the consequences, to potential resolutions, maintaining a single, clear topic throughout. There are no irrelevant tangents or illogical leaps in conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are no extended overlaps; the brief overlaps that occur (e.g., [00:05 - 00:06] and [00:24 - 00:27]) are short (1-2 seconds) and indicative of natural, engaged conversation where one speaker might start a question slightly before the other finishes their thought. These types of overlaps demonstrate active listening and prompt turn-taking rather than disruption. Crucially, there are no long pauses between speaker turns, contributing to a smooth and natural conversational rhythm. The dialogue flows effortlessly from one speaker to the next.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--107408",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey, Cristen! I'm so excited you're coming to visit. It's been too long since we've caught up\n[00:04 - 00:13] Speaker B: I know, right? I was just thinking about how much we've missed out on catching up. There's so much I want to hear about, especially how your new job is going.\n[00:13 - 00:23] Speaker A: It's going great, actually. I love it and my boss is really happy with my work so far. Plus, the pay is great which is always a nice bonus.\n[00:22 - 00:30] Speaker B: Oh, that's awesome! But I was wondering, have you had a chance to explore the area around your new place? I remember you were really excited about the neighborhood.\n[00:31 - 00:39] Speaker A: Yes! It's really great! I love it here and I think I might want to stay for a while. There's just so much to do and the people are really friendly.\n[00:40 - 00:45] Speaker B: That's great! I'm glad you're liking it there. Let me know if you ever need help with anything, I'm always here for you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue consistently demonstrate high relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker directly addresses the previous speaker's statement or question, ensuring a smooth and coherent conversation flow.\n- Speaker B's first response directly acknowledges Speaker A's excitement and then appropriately steers the conversation towards catching up and asking about the new job, which is a relevant follow-up.\n- Speaker A's subsequent response directly answers the question about the new job.\n- Speaker B then smoothly transitions from the job topic to the new neighborhood, recalling a previous conversation point, which is a natural and logical shift in an informal catch-up.\n- Speaker A's final response directly addresses the question about the neighborhood.\n- Speaker B's closing statement is a relevant and supportive wrap-up.\nThe topics introduced are coherent within the context of friends catching up after a long time.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two instances of slight overlaps indicated by the timestamps ([00:04 - 00:13] Speaker B starts at 00:04 while Speaker A finishes at 00:05, and [00:22 - 00:30] Speaker B starts at 00:22 while Speaker A finishes at 00:23). Both of these overlaps are very brief (1 second each) and do not qualify as \"extended overlaps.\" They are characteristic of natural, enthusiastic conversation where speakers might slightly anticipate or affirm each other, rather than causing disruption or indicating a lack of turn-taking ability. There are no long pauses evident between turns, suggesting a responsive and dynamic interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--556",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Have you ever tried getting a carpet cleaned?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: No, I've never done that.\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: It's an interesting process. It's amazing how much dirt a carpet can hold, even\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: Really? How long does the cleaning process usually take?\n[00:12 - 00:27] Speaker A: It varies depending on the size of the carpet, but the result is worth it! The company I had it done with sent a man to my house to clean it. He wore a hazmat suit and had a big machine, and he just used hot water and a special\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker B: Hot water and detergent? That sounds quite effective. Did it take long for the carpet to dry afterward?\n[00:32 - 00:39] Speaker A: It did take a few hours to dry completely. You should ask your partner if he would be up for trying it one day.\n[00:39 - 00:42] Speaker B: Hm, maybe. Thanks for the suggestion!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly relates to the previous one, building upon the topic of carpet cleaning. Speaker A introduces the topic, Speaker B responds appropriately. Speaker A then elaborates, and Speaker B asks relevant follow-up questions about the process duration and drying time. Speaker A provides details and offers a related suggestion. Speaker B's final response acknowledges the suggestion and maintains politeness. The conversation stays coherent and on-topic throughout. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are two instances of brief overlaps (00:09-00:10 and 00:26-00:27). In both cases, Speaker B starts speaking just as Speaker A's sentence is trailing off or cut short (\"even\", \"special\"). These are short overlaps (approx. 1 second each) and seem to be natural instances of a listener anticipating or showing engagement rather than disruptive interruptions. They do not appear to be prolonged or harmful. There are no long pauses between turns that would disrupt the flow of the conversation. The pacing feels natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--122850",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Hey, boss. Just wanted to let you know that I'm really not happy with the quality of my work lately. It's been slipping and I'm not sure how\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: Slipping? That's concerning. What do you think is causing this?\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker A: I don't know. I just feel like my work hasn't been up to par and it's been bugging me.\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: Well, let's take a look at what you've been working on recently and see if we can identify the problem.\n[00:22 - 00:23] Speaker A: Alright.\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker B: It sounds like you've been cutting corners and not taking the time to ensure that\n[00:26 - 00:34] Speaker A: Honestly, it's more about the stress I've been under. I haven't been taking the time to do things right because I just feel overwhelmed.\n[00:35 - 00:45] Speaker B: I can understand that. Things have been pretty busy around here lately. But we need to make sure that our quality doesn't suffer because of it. So let's take a break for a few minutes and talk about how we can fix this problem.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates a clear problem (work quality slipping). Speaker B responds appropriately by seeking clarification and proposing a practical solution (reviewing work). When Speaker B makes an assumption about the cause (\"cutting corners\"), Speaker A promptly and relevantly clarifies the true underlying issue (stress and feeling overwhelmed). Speaker B then acknowledges this new information empathetically and refocuses the conversation on finding a solution. Each turn builds logically on the previous one, ensuring the conversation stays on topic and progresses constructively towards understanding and addressing the core problem.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency. There is one brief overlap between [0:26 - 0:27] where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing a sentence. This overlap is only 1 second long and is functionally natural, as Speaker A is interjecting to correct an assumption made by Speaker B. This falls under the category of \"brief overlaps\" which are acceptable according to the criteria. There is also a small pause of 1 second between [0:34 - 0:35]. This is a \"small pause\" and is also acceptable. No prolonged pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps are present, indicating a natural and smooth conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--66940",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Wow, you're really good at that!\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Thanks! It's just a little trick I use to\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: Oh, could you show me that trick again? I want to make sure I understand it correctly.\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sure! It's actually pretty easy once you get the hang of it.\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker A: I don't know if I can. It looks really complicated at\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker B: Don't worry, I'll be right here to guide you through it. You can absolutely do this.\n[00:21 - 00:23] Speaker A: Okay, let's give it a try!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence throughout.\n*   Speaker B's \"Thanks! It's just a little trick I use to\" is a direct and relevant response to Speaker A's compliment.\n*   Speaker A's \"Oh, could you show me that trick again?\" directly picks up on B's mention of a \"trick\" and expresses a desire for further understanding, which is highly relevant.\n*   Speaker B's \"Sure! It's actually pretty easy...\" is a relevant and encouraging reply to A's request.\n*   Speaker A's \"I don't know if I can. It looks really complicated at\" expresses a natural hesitation following B's encouragement, demonstrating logical consistency.\n*   Speaker B's \"Don't worry, I'll be right here to guide you through it. You can absolutely do this.\" directly addresses A's doubt with reassurance and support, maintaining the conversational flow.\n*   Speaker A's final \"Okay, let's give it a try!\" is a relevant and conclusive response, indicating acceptance of B's reassurance and willingness to proceed.\nThe conversation flows naturally with clear progression and no irrelevant diversions or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural.\n*   There's a brief overlap/interruption at [00:04], where Speaker A starts speaking as Speaker B is cutting off (or being cut off). This is a very common and natural occurrence in conversation, indicating eagerness or quick uptake rather than a harmful interruption.\n*   There's a 1-second pause between [00:09] and [00:10], which is a small, acceptable pause.\n*   There's another brief overlap between [00:16] and [00:17], where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This is also a common feature of natural, fluid conversation, especially when one speaker is reassuring or jumping in with encouragement. It's not a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap but rather indicative of engagement.\nNo long pauses are detected, and the detected overlaps are brief and contribute to the naturalness of the interaction rather than hindering it.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--127222",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: So, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much. Just getting through the day.\n[00:03 - 00:13] Speaker A: Yeah, I know how that is. I'm just trying to take it one day at a time myself. But it's good to have coffee - makes the days a little more bearable, you know?\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker B: Absolutely. Coffee is essential for me, or else I'd be a total zombie in the morning. Speaking of which, this coffee is really good. Where did you get it?\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I just remembered—do you take your coffee black, or do you add anything?\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker B: I usually take it black, but sometimes I'll add a splash of milk. Anyway, I was asking where you got this coffee?\n[00:32 - 00:46] Speaker A: Oh, I got it from that new place down the street. They're really starting to do some great things with their coffee beans—roasting them longer and using different blends. This particular mug is their special dark roast—it's my favorite so far.\n[00:46 - 00:53] Speaker B: It definitely is delicious! I might have to stop by there tomorrow and try out some of their other flavors. Thanks for introducing me to it!\n[00:53 - 01:02] Speaker A: No problem, glad you like it. They've got a lot of other great stuff there too—pastries, sandwiches... you should definitely check it out.\n[01:02 - 01:05] Speaker B: I will, thanks! So what do you usually order\n[01:04 - 01:10] Speaker A: Oh, before I forget—do you prefer sweet or savory pastries? They have a really good mix there.\n[01:10 - 01:14] Speaker B: I usually go for savory. But yeah, I was asking—what do you do?\n[01:14 - 01:15] Speaker A: I'm a writer.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A demonstrates significant issues in response relevance and logical consistency. At [00:20], Speaker A \"jumps in\" to ask about coffee preference, interrupting Speaker B's direct question about where the coffee came from. While related to coffee, it's a digression that ignores B's immediate inquiry, forcing B to re-state their question at [00:26]. A similar, more severe instance occurs at [01:04], where Speaker B asks \"So what do you usually order [at the coffee shop]?\", a direct question about Speaker A's habits. Speaker A completely ignores this question and instead asks B an irrelevant question about their pastry preference. This shows a clear lack of listening and a failure to maintain logical consistency by addressing the direct query. Speaker B's final question, \"what do you do?\", is an abrupt topic shift, likely prompted by Speaker A's repeated failures to engage coherently with the previous topic, further highlighting the breakdown in logical consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is significantly hampered by Speaker A's frequent and disruptive overlapping turns. At [00:20], Speaker A explicitly says \"Sorry to jump in\" while overlapping Speaker B's turn (1-second overlap according to timestamps). This is not a brief, acceptable overlap but an intentional interjection that disregards B's ongoing turn and direct question. This pattern repeats at [01:04], where Speaker A again overlaps Speaker B (1-second overlap) to introduce an irrelevant question, completely ignoring B's direct question. These are not minor stumbles but rather \"overlapping turns\" where A actively takes control of the conversation by interrupting and redirecting, causing B to re-assert their questions or change the topic out of frustration. There are no long pauses. The consistent, disruptive overlaps from Speaker A are a major fluency issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--447",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Do you like Rick and Morty?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: I'm sorry, what?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker A: Rick and Morty is a very funny show! Have you ever heard\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Wait, could you explain what kind of show it is? I'm not familiar with it.\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker A: It's a cartoon about two characters who have a lot of different adventures. I haven't seen anything\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker B: I see, but what kind of adventures are we talking about? Is it sci-fi, comedy, or something else?\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker A: It's a mix of sci-fi and comedy. Maybe you should take a look at it sometime!\n[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker B: Okay, I will. Where can I watch it?\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker A: You can watch it on Adult Swim's website. It's very funny!\n[00:34 - 00:36] Speaker B: I'm always on the lookout for new entertainment!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial \"I'm sorry, what?\" is a relevant request for clarification. Speaker A then rephrases and elaborates. Speaker B's subsequent questions (\"what kind of show is it?\", \"what kind of adventures?\", \"Is it sci-fi, comedy, or something else?\", \"Where can I watch it?\") are all highly relevant follow-ups that progressively refine their understanding of \"Rick and Morty.\" Speaker A consistently provides direct and relevant answers to these questions. The conversation flows logically from introduction to detailed description and practical information, indicating excellent relevance and coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n*   **Pauses:** All pauses between speaker turns are brief (1 second or less) and natural, such as the 1-second pauses at [00:10-00:11] and [00:21-00:22]. There are no long pauses that disrupt the conversation flow.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are a few brief overlaps:\n    *   [00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B starts at 0:06 while Speaker A finishes at 0:07 (1-second overlap). Speaker B interjects as Speaker A is trailing off (\"Have you ever heard\").\n    *   [00:16 - 00:21] Speaker B starts at 0:16 while Speaker A finishes at 0:17 (1-second overlap). Again, Speaker B interjects as Speaker A's sentence is trailing off (\"I haven't seen anything\").\n    *   [00:26 - 00:29] Speaker B starts at 0:26 while Speaker A finishes at 0:26 (very brief, less than 1-second overlap). This is almost simultaneous and typical of natural conversation.\n\nWhile there are overlaps, they are brief (1 second or less) and do not appear to be \"prolonged\" or \"harmful.\" In both 1-second overlap instances, Speaker A's sentence was trailing off or incomplete, making Speaker B's interjection less disruptive. The conversation continues smoothly without any indication of misunderstanding or struggle for the speaking turn. These brief overlaps contribute to the natural, dynamic feel of the dialogue rather than detracting from its fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--445",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hi!\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Hi! How are you doing?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm doing pretty good, how about you?\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B: I'm doing pretty good too. I was just thinking about trying to make a quick and simple meal. What kind of meals do you usually prefer\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but are you looking for something specific, like a breakfast or dinner option?\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker B: I hadn't thought about that. I enjoy cooking, but it's getting late so I'll have to make my dinner tomorrow.\n[00:23 - 00:25] Speaker A: Well what do you like to cook?\n[00:25 - 00:28] Speaker B: I like to make simple things like pancakes and omelettes.\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker A: I was thinking of making something with ground beef.\n[00:31 - 00:32] Speaker B: That sounds good.\n[00:33 - 00:36] Speaker A: I just need to get some ground beef and maybe some\n[00:35 - 00:39] Speaker B: Oh, I wanted to ask, do you have any favorite recipes for ground beef?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B** introduces the topic of \"quick and simple meal,\" which is a natural segue.\n2.  **[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A** clarifies Speaker B's request, showing active listening and trying to narrow down the scope, which is logically consistent.\n3.  **[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker B** responds to the clarification but then indicates a change in immediate plans (\"it's getting late so I'll have to make my dinner tomorrow\"). This is a slight shift from the initial \"trying to make a quick and simple meal\" *now*, but it sets up the next logical question.\n4.  **[00:23 - 00:25] Speaker A** adapts to Speaker B's new context by asking about what they \"like to cook\" generally, maintaining topic coherence.\n5.  **[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker A** then pivots to their own cooking plans (\"I was thinking of making something with ground beef\"). While a sudden shift from Speaker B's preferences, it's still within the broader theme of meal preparation and is common in casual conversation for sharing personal thoughts.\n6.  **[00:31 - 00:32] Speaker B** acknowledges this shift appropriately.\n7.  **[00:35 - 00:39] Speaker B** follows up with a relevant question about ground beef recipes, directly related to Speaker A's stated intent.\n\nOverall, responses are logically consistent and topics cohere well, even with minor pivots. There are no irrelevant or confusing turns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is strong.\n1.  There are two instances of overlaps:\n    *   **[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A** overlaps **[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B**. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" indicating awareness and politeness. This is a brief, natural interruption for clarification, not a disruptive, extended overlap.\n    *   **[00:35 - 00:39] Speaker B** overlaps **[00:33 - 00:36] Speaker A**. Speaker B starts with \"Oh, I wanted to ask,\" which signals an immediate thought or question. This type of overlap is also brief and natural in dynamic conversation, where a speaker interjects an urgent or just-thought-of question related to the ongoing statement.\n2.  Neither overlap is prolonged or indicative of a breakdown in communication. They contribute to the natural, informal flow of the conversation.\n3.  There are no long pauses between speaker turns, contributing to a natural pace.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--436",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hi! I know you're not an expert in gardening, but I thought you might be able to give me a few pointers.\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: Sure, what kind of issues are you having?\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker A: Well, our new lawn needs a lot of work.\n[00:12 - 00:13] Speaker B: How new?\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: We had it installed about three weeks ago, and\n[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker B: Oh, that's pretty recent! Have you been watering it regularly?\n[00:19 - 00:29] Speaker A: Yes, we've been following a strict watering schedule. But I was going to mention that it seems to be developing some brown patches. Do you think it could be a soil issue or perhaps\n[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker B: Brown patches could also be due to overwatering or pests. Have you checked for any signs of insects?\n[00:34 - 00:41] Speaker A: Not yet, I was planning to do that. I'll also look into the soil quality. Thanks for the suggestion!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker A initiates the conversation by seeking gardening pointers, and Speaker B immediately asks for clarification on the issues. Speaker A then specifies the problem (new lawn, brown patches), and Speaker B offers logical, relevant follow-up questions and suggestions (how new, watering, overwatering, pests, checking for insects). Each turn builds logically on the previous one, maintaining topic coherence throughout the discussion about lawn care problems. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth flow of conversation. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  Speaker B starting at 00:15 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:16. This is a 1-second overlap where Speaker B is reacting to \"three weeks ago\" and naturally jumping in with a related question (\"Oh, that's pretty recent! Have you been watering it regularly?\").\n2.  Speaker B starting at 00:28 while Speaker A is speaking until 00:29. This is another 1-second overlap where Speaker B is responding to Speaker A's mention of \"brown patches\" by offering alternative causes.\nBoth overlaps are brief and appear to be natural instances of active listening and eager turn-taking, rather than disruptive interruptions. They do not hinder the understanding or flow of the conversation. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--193",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hello Martin, how are your preparations for the coming exams?\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: Good, Miss Eliza. I've worked hard for it recently. I think I'm ready for the coming exams.\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker A: Excellent, so are you working at weekends now to get some pocket money for\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: Actually, yes, I am! I'm very grateful to Mister Lamb, he really helped me with my problem.\n[00:18 - 00:22] Speaker A: Mister Lam said that your problem was that you have no pocket money.\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker B: That's right. I couldn't go out with my friends because I didn't even have the money for the bus fee. But I'm OK now, with a part-time job.\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker A: I'm glad to hear that. So, do you think the students welfare club really helped you\n[00:33 - 00:44] Speaker B: Oh yes, I have no complaints about the club, I think it is fantastic. By the way, Miss Eliza, you were asking about pocket money earlier. I'm working weekends now, so I can save up a bit.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates good response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn builds upon the previous one. Speaker A's initial questions about exams and then pocket money lead into Speaker B's explanation of his situation and the help he received. The introduction of \"Mister Lamb\" by Speaker B is followed up by Speaker A seeking clarification. While Speaker A's sudden jump to \"students welfare club\" at [00:29] might seem slightly abrupt without external context (as the preceding turns focused on Mister Lamb and the part-time job), Speaker B's immediate and positive response (\"Oh yes, I have no complaints about the club...\") confirms that this topic is relevant and understood by both participants in relation to the help Martin received. This indicates a shared understanding or an implied connection that maintains overall topic coherence. Therefore, there are no significant issues with logical consistency or topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits excellent fluency. There are no indications of long pauses between speaker turns. A brief overlap occurs at [00:33 - 00:34] where Speaker B begins speaking one second before Speaker A finishes their turn. According to the guidelines, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this 1-second overlap falls into that category. There are no prolonged or harmful overlaps. The conversation flows naturally without disruptive hesitations or interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--126173",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I can't believe I'm already done with my term paper.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: That's amazing! How did you manage to finish it so quickly?\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: I just sat down and wrote for two hours without even\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B: Two hours straight? That's some serious focus! How did you manage to stay on track without getting distracted?\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker A: I guess I was just really motivated to get it done. It's been a tough semester, and I could use a boost in my grades.\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B: Well, you definitely deserve it after putting in all that work. Good job!\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: Thanks. I feel like I need a break now, though. My brain is completely drained,\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker B: Fried, right? Let's grab that coffee you mentioned earlier. I think we both need it.\n[00:36 - 00:38] Speaker A: Yeah, definitely. Let's go!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement.\n\n*   Speaker B's initial response (\"That's amazing! How did you manage to finish it so quickly?\") is a direct and enthusiastic follow-up to Speaker A's announcement.\n*   Speaker A's explanation (\"I just sat down and wrote for two hours...\") is a clear answer.\n*   Speaker B's subsequent interjection and question (\"Two hours straight? That's some serious focus! How did you manage to stay on track without getting distracted?\") demonstrates engagement and a desire for more detail, directly linking to Speaker A's previous comment.\n*   Speaker A's response (\"I guess I was just really motivated...\") explains their focus, maintaining topic coherence.\n*   Speaker B's affirmation (\"Well, you definitely deserve it...\") is a relevant supportive comment.\n*   Speaker A's shift to needing a break (\"My brain is completely drained,\") logically follows from the effort described.\n*   Speaker B's completion of A's thought and proposal (\"Fried, right? Let's grab that coffee you mentioned earlier. I think we both need it.\") shows high contextual awareness and proposes a relevant action based on shared understanding.\n*   Speaker A's final agreement (\"Yeah, definitely. Let's go!\") is a direct and conclusive response to the proposal.\n\nThe conversation flows naturally with a clear progression of ideas, making it logically consistent and highly coherent.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits excellent interactional fluency.\n\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps identified:\n    *   `[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A:` and `[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B:`: A 2-second overlap (0:08-0:10). Speaker B interjects with a question (\"Two hours straight?\") as Speaker A's sentence trails off. This is a common and natural form of conversational engagement, indicating active listening and enthusiasm rather than disruption.\n    *   `[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A:` and `[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker B:`: Another 2-second overlap (0:30-0:32). Speaker B completes Speaker A's sentence (\"drained,\" -> \"Fried, right?\"). This type of collaborative completion is a strong indicator of rapport and natural, fluid conversation, not a harmful overlap.\n    These overlaps are brief and functional, enhancing the naturalness of the dialogue rather than hindering it. There are no \"extended overlaps\" that would make the conversation difficult to follow.\n\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between turns. The transitions between speakers are quick and seamless (e.g., 0:02 to 0:03, 0:06 to 0:06 - an overlap, 0:14 to 0:15, 0:22 to 0:22, 0:26 to 0:26 - an overlap, 0:35 to 0:36). These brief or non-existent pauses contribute to a dynamic and engaging exchange.\n\nOverall, the conversational rhythm is very natural, with brief, purposeful overlaps and no detrimental pauses, contributing to high interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--428",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: The air conditioning is not working! We need to call a handyman before we start to work on\n[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker B: Actually, I think Dan is already on top of that. But do you know if they also asked the handyman to look into the bathroom toilet? It keeps clogging up.\n[00:12 - 00:24] Speaker A: Yes, they are getting him to fix that too. That would be convenient. They might as well ask him to fix the electrical wiring. The circuit breakers keep going out all the time. It's really frustrating because\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker B: Speaking of wiring, do you think it's related to the power surges we've been experiencing?\n[00:28 - 00:40] Speaker A: It could be. But I was about to mention how annoying it is when the circuit breakers go out. Also, Frank told me the other day that the gutters outside were clogged and that's why the parking lot was flooded.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's first turn directly addresses Speaker A's initial point about the AC, then logically extends the topic to another handyman-related issue (the toilet). Speaker A then directly answers Speaker B's question and introduces another relevant issue (electrical wiring), which is a common building maintenance problem. Speaker B's follow-up question (\"Speaking of wiring, do you think it's related to the power surges?\") shows excellent topic coherence, building directly on Speaker A's previous statement. Speaker A acknowledges B's point and then redirects slightly back to their original thought about the frustration of circuit breakers, before introducing another building-related problem (clogged gutters). While the shift to gutters is a new topic, it remains within the broader theme of building maintenance issues that require fixing, maintaining overall coherence. There are no instances of irrelevant responses or logical inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates good interactional fluency. There are two instances of brief, 1-second overlaps:\n1.  **[00:04 - 00:05]:** Speaker A is still speaking as Speaker B begins their turn.\n2.  **[00:23 - 00:28]:** Speaker A is still speaking as Speaker B begins their turn.\n\nAccording to the instructions, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" These 1-second overlaps are brief and appear to be natural instances of turn-taking in an engaged conversation, where one speaker begins as the other is finishing. They do not seem to disrupt the flow or indicate a lack of listening, nor do they constitute \"prolonged\" or \"overlapping turns\" that would hinder communication. There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are generally immediate and smooth.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--29306",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, how are you?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: I'm good. How are you?\n[00:03 - 00:17] Speaker A: I'm great! I just feel like everything in my life is finally falling into place. I love my job, my relationship is going well...I just feel really lucky and grateful for everything that has led me to this point in\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: That's wonderful to hear! Speaking of your job, do you feel like it's challenging enough for you, or are you looking for something more?\n[00:23 - 00:34] Speaker A: Actually, my job has been both challenging and fulfilling, which is why I'm so content with it now. But I was going to say that I'm also grateful for the people who have supported me along the way.\n[00:35 - 00:42] Speaker B: That makes sense. Having a strong support system can really make all the difference. So what's next for you? Any big plans?\n[00:42 - 00:53] Speaker A: Nothing too big right now, just enjoying the moment and savoring all of the good things in my life. But who knows, maybe something exciting will come up down the road that\n[00:51 - 00:57] Speaker B: Sorry, just curious—are you considering any new hobbies or activities to keep things exciting in the meantime?\n[00:57 - 01:06] Speaker A: That's a good question! I've been thinking about trying out a new sport or maybe taking up painting again. It's all about finding balance and enjoying the little things.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's initial expression of contentment is naturally followed by Speaker B's specific inquiry about the job, which Speaker A addresses directly while also attempting to complete their original thought about support systems. Speaker B then logically transitions to asking about future plans, a natural follow-up to a state of contentment. When Speaker B interrupts to ask about hobbies, Speaker A smoothly shifts to answer that question. There are no instances where a speaker's response is off-topic or illogical given the preceding turn. The conversation maintains a clear and coherent thematic flow throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is generally good, but there are two instances of overlapping speech where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A.\n1.  At `[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B` overlaps with `[00:03 - 00:17] Speaker A`. Speaker A's sentence ends at 00:17, meaning Speaker B starts speaking 1 second before Speaker A finishes. This is a brief overlap.\n2.  At `[00:51 - 00:57] Speaker B` overlaps with `[00:42 - 00:53] Speaker A`. Speaker A's sentence ends at 00:53, meaning Speaker B starts speaking 2 seconds before Speaker A finishes. Speaker B also says \"Sorry, just curious\", indicating an awareness of the interruption.\n\nWhile these are overlaps, they are relatively brief (1-2 seconds) and the conversation recovers immediately without any noticeable disruption to understanding or flow. Speaker A is able to seamlessly pivot to answer the questions posed by Speaker B despite being cut off. There are no prolonged pauses. Given that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" these specific overlaps do not significantly detract from the overall fluency or naturalness of the interaction, as the conversation continues smoothly and coherently afterwards.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--395",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: What did you do last weekend, Bob? Stayed at home again?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: No, I visited a friend, then I went to a dance party later\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: Oh, which friend did you visit? Anyone I know?\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker B: No, you don't know them. Anyway, after that, I went to a dance party.\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker A: Did you enjoy the dance?\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker B: No, I didn't. There were too many people. And what about you and your weekend?\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker A: Sorry, before we move on, I'm curious, why didn't you enjoy the dance? Was it just the crowd?\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker B: Yeah, it was overcrowded, and the music wasn't great either. Now, what about you and your weekend?\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker A: I watched TV on Saturday morning and went shopping in the afternoon. I played tennis on Sunday.\n[00:38 - 00:39] Speaker B: Ah, did you win?\n[00:40 - 00:41] Speaker A: Yes, I did.\n[00:41 - 00:44] Speaker B: Great. Can I have a game with you sometime this weekend?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are consistently relevant and logically consistent. Each speaker's turn directly addresses the previous question or statement, or naturally extends the topic. For example, Speaker A asks about Speaker B's weekend, Speaker B answers, Speaker A follows up on details, and Speaker B provides more information. When Speaker B attempts to shift the topic at [00:15], Speaker A acknowledges this but naturally expresses curiosity to delve deeper into the current topic before moving on, which is a very coherent and natural conversational move. Speaker B then provides the requested information and re-initiates the topic shift, which Speaker A then fulfills. The final turns regarding the tennis game are also a logical progression from Speaker A mentioning playing tennis. There are no instances of off-topic remarks, misunderstandings, or illogical jumps in conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are a couple of brief overlaps detected (e.g., [00:05 - 00:06] where Speaker A starts talking 1 second before Speaker B finishes, and [00:18 - 00:19] where Speaker A starts talking 1 second before Speaker B finishes). These overlaps are very short (1 second each) and are typical of natural, enthusiastic conversation rather than disruptive interruptions. They do not cause any confusion or hinder understanding. Similarly, the pauses between turns are minimal (e.g., 1-second gaps at [00:37-00:38] and [00:39-00:40]), indicating smooth turn-taking without any awkward or prolonged silences. The conversation flows very naturally and at a good pace.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--134512",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm so glad I was able to take that typing course. It's really helped me become a much faster and more accurate typist.\n[00:08 - 00:16] Speaker B: That's great to hear, Violette. Having good typing skills is essential for any secretary. You've definitely set yourself up for success in this role, especially\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: Speaking of success, do you think there are other areas I should focus on to further improve my performance here?\n[00:22 - 00:35] Speaker B: Absolutely. In addition to typing, I would recommend focusing on time management and organizational skills. These are crucial for handling the various tasks you'll encounter. And as I was saying earlier, you've definitely set yourself up for success in this field.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's statement about typing skills, affirming its importance. Speaker A then seamlessly transitions the conversation by picking up on Speaker B's mention of \"success\" to inquire about other areas for improvement, demonstrating good topic coherence. Speaker B's final response directly answers Speaker A's question, providing relevant advice. Furthermore, Speaker B's action of circling back to their interrupted thought (\"And as I was saying earlier, you've definitely set yourself up for success in this field\") demonstrates excellent logical consistency and conversational awareness, ensuring no ideas are lost despite the brief interruption. The conversation flows naturally and purposefully.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is a brief overlap between Speaker B (ending at 0:16) and Speaker A (starting at 0:15). This overlap lasts for approximately 1 second (from 0:15 to 0:16). According to the guidelines, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" A 1-second overlap is considered brief and does not significantly disrupt the conversation flow. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected. The dialogue feels natural and dynamic, typical of a smooth conversation where speakers anticipate turns or briefly interrupt to build on a point, as Speaker A does by connecting to \"success.\" Speaker B's ability to pick up their interrupted thought further enhances the naturalness.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--24667",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, can I have a receipt please?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Of course! Here you go, but\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker A: Before you hand it over, can you double-check if the discount was applied? I want to make sure everything is correct.\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: Sure, let me take a quick look... Yes, the discount was applied. Here you are.\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker A: Wow, I didn't realize I had spent so much money.\n[00:20 - 00:21] Speaker B: Well, it all adds up\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker A: Actually, did you include the tip in the total?\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: No, the tip isn't included in this total. It all adds up though!\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker A: Yeah, I guess it does. Thanks for the receipt.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout.\n*   Speaker A's initial request for a receipt is met directly by Speaker B.\n*   Speaker A's interruption at [00:03] to ask about the discount is logically consistent, as it pertains to the receipt they are about to receive.\n*   Speaker B's response at [00:11] directly addresses the discount query and then proceeds to hand over the receipt as initially intended.\n*   Speaker A's comment at [00:16] about spending money is a natural reaction to seeing the total on the receipt.\n*   Speaker B's reply at [00:20] \"Well, it all adds up\" is a relevant, common idiom in response to the previous statement.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up question about the tip at [00:20] is also relevant to the total amount discussed.\n*   Speaker B's answer at [00:24] directly answers the tip question and logically reiterates the \"it all adds up\" point.\n*   Speaker A's final remark at [00:28] closes the interaction coherently.\nAll turns build logically on the previous ones, maintaining a clear topic flow from receipt to total amount, discount, and tip. There are no irrelevant or confusing statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent fluency with natural turn-taking.\n*   **Overlaps:**\n    *   There is a brief overlap between [00:02-00:04] (Speaker B) and [00:03-00:10] (Speaker A). Speaker A interrupts Speaker B's utterance (\"Here you go, but\") to ask a crucial question before the action (handing over the receipt) is completed. This is a very common and natural type of interruption in real-time conversation, often for clarification or to prevent an action, and lasts only about 1 second.\n    *   There is another brief overlap between [00:20-00:21] (Speaker B) and [00:20-00:23] (Speaker A). Speaker A interjects with a new question (\"Actually, did you include the tip...\") while Speaker B is making a general comment (\"Well, it all adds up\"). This is also a natural type of overlap, indicating a thought occurring to Speaker A during Speaker B's non-critical utterance, lasting about 1 second.\n    These overlaps are brief and contextually appropriate, indicating dynamic and engaged conversation rather than disruptive interferences.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no extended pauses between speaker turns. The gaps between turns (e.g., 00:10-00:11, 00:19-00:20, 00:23-00:24, 00:27-00:28) are consistently brief (around 1 second), representing natural hesitations or processing time in a human-like dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--300",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Can't you come in and have tea now, Peter?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Not yet, I must water the garden first.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: Do you have to water it the entire\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I just noticed the sky looks a bit cloudy. Are you sure it won't rain soon?\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker A: I'm afraid I must. Look at it! It's terribly dry.\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker B: What a nuisance! Last summer it was very dry, too. Don't you think we\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A: Oh, before I forget, did you mention if you had to water it every day last summer?\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: Yes, I did. I had to water it every day.\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker A: Well, I'll have tea by myself. That was quick! Have you finished already?\n[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker B: Yes, look out of the window.\n[00:35 - 00:38] Speaker A: It's raining. That means you needn't water the garden.\n[00:38 - 00:42] Speaker B: That was a pleasant surprise. It means I can have tea, instead.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance throughout. Speakers consistently respond logically to previous statements, building a coherent narrative around the task of watering the garden and the desire for tea, influenced by the weather. For instance, Speaker B's initial reason for not having tea (watering) directly sets up Speaker A's subsequent questions. Speaker B's observation about the cloudy sky is a relevant interjection that affects the core task. Speaker A's realization \"It's raining. That means you needn't water the garden\" is a logical conclusion derived from Speaker B's hint. Even the brief digression by Speaker A (\"Oh, before I forget, did you mention if you had to water it every day last summer?\") revisits a related historical point about watering, maintaining topic coherence rather than derailing the conversation. The conversation flows naturally from one logical step to the next, demonstrating excellent logical consistency and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are two instances of brief overlap:\n1.  `[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt...` overlaps with `[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: Do you have to water it the entire`. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly apologizes for the interruption, which makes it a natural and acknowledged conversational maneuver, not a disruptive or extended overlap.\n2.  `[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A: Oh, before I forget...` overlaps with `[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker B: Don't you think we`. This is also a 1-second overlap. Speaker A uses a common phrase (\"Oh, before I forget\") to signal a remembered thought, which is a natural form of interjection.\nNeither of these are \"extended overlaps\"; they are brief, natural interruptions common in spontaneous conversation.\nRegarding pauses, there are no long pauses between speaker turns. The gaps between turns are minimal (typically 1 second or less, e.g., 0:11 to 0:12, 0:27 to 0:28, 0:34 to 0:35), which are natural for processing and turn-taking and do not disrupt the flow of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--97657",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, Venice. Do you need help with your homework?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Yes, I do. I'm having trouble with this math problem.\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker A: Let me take a look. It looks like you're trying to find the area of a rectangle. Is that what you're\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: Actually, I'm also confused about how to set up the equation. Do I need to add or multiply the numbers?\n[00:17 - 00:26] Speaker A: Good question! For the area of a rectangle, you need to multiply the length by the width. So, in this case, we need to multiply 7 by 3.\n[00:26 - 00:28] Speaker B: Okay, that makes sense.\n[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker A: Great! Now, try doing the problem on your own and see if you can get it right.\n[00:33 - 00:35] Speaker B: Alright, I'll give it a try.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each turn builds directly upon the previous one, maintaining a clear topic focus on solving the math homework problem.\n- Speaker A initiates the conversation by offering help, and Speaker B immediately accepts and specifies the problem area (math).\n- Speaker A correctly identifies the problem type (area of a rectangle) and asks for confirmation, showing attentive listening.\n- Speaker B's follow-up question about setting up the equation and whether to add or multiply is a direct and logical extension of the problem identified by Speaker A. It shows an attempt to understand the core concept.\n- Speaker A provides a clear, accurate, and relevant explanation for calculating the area of a rectangle (multiplication), directly addressing Speaker B's confusion.\n- Speaker B's \"Okay, that makes sense\" confirms understanding, which is a relevant and expected response.\n- Speaker A's instruction to try the problem independently is a logical next step in a tutoring scenario.\n- Speaker B's agreement to try is a relevant and cooperative response.\nThe conversation stays on topic throughout, with each participant contributing meaningfully and logically.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good, demonstrating natural conversational pacing.\n- **Pauses:** The pauses between turns are consistently brief (1 second or less), for example, between `[00:02]` and `[00:03]`, `[00:05]` and `[00:06]`, and `[00:16]` and `[00:17]`. Many turns immediately follow the previous one with no discernible pause, which indicates smooth transitions. These brief pauses are natural and do not hinder the flow of conversation.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap identified: `[00:11 - 00:12]` where Speaker A is still speaking as Speaker B begins their turn at `[00:11 - 00:16]`. This is a 1-second overlap. As per the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This short overlap is very natural, often occurring when one speaker anticipates the end of a sentence or wants to interject a clarifying question without waiting for a full pause. It does not appear to be a prolonged or disruptive overlapping turn.\n\nOverall, the timing of turns, including the brief pause and the single minor overlap, contributes to a natural and fluent conversational exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--490",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I had no idea the countryside was so noisy!\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: It's usually very quiet in the North Carolina Mountains, Kathy. But this is the year of our 17-year bird migration, so\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker A: Wait, 17 years? You mean it's only noisy right now for me and it won't be like this again until 2034?\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker B: Well, it's not all summer long. They just come out when the weather gets cool, usually after a big storm. They'll be quiet after 4 or 5 days, once\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker A: Weeks? Where do they go for the next 17 years?\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker B: Oh, they live near the mountains for most of their lives. They just come down here to sing and do their special dances.\n[00:33 - 00:35] Speaker A: Sounds like they're in the sky.\n[00:35 - 00:37] Speaker B: Well, they're in the trees mostly.\n[00:38 - 00:45] Speaker A: This is terrible. Now I don't want to walk under any of the trees in this forest. There's probably bird waste everywhere.\n[00:46 - 00:50] Speaker B: So you don't have these in the city. I thought I heard them when I went to Atlanta, Georgia.\n[00:50 - 00:55] Speaker A: I've never heard anything like this before. California might not have them.\n[00:55 - 00:57] Speaker B: Maybe they're just in the East.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's initial complaint about noise is met with Speaker B's relevant explanation about bird migration. Subsequent turns maintain coherence, with Speaker A asking clarifying questions (e.g., \"Wait, 17 years?\", \"Weeks? Where do they go?\"), and Speaker B providing direct answers or clarifications. Even when Speaker A expresses concern about bird waste, it's a logical continuation of the topic of birds being in trees. Speaker B's question about whether Speaker A has these birds in the city and Speaker A's response about California are also relevant extensions of the discussion about the birds' geographical distribution. There are no instances of topic drift or irrelevant contributions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural and responsive conversational flow. There is one brief overlap detected at `[00:23 - 00:27]` where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing their sentence. Specifically, Speaker B says \"...once\" at 00:24 and Speaker A begins \"Weeks?\" at 00:23. This is a 1-second overlap. According to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This overlap is brief and serves as a natural interjection for clarification (\"Weeks?\" following \"4 or 5 days\"), which is common in spontaneous speech and does not detract from the fluency. There are no other significant disfluencies.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--441",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Congratulations on your grades! You are doing really well!\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Thanks! I'm definitely feeling more excited than nervous about starting my\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but what are you excited about the most when it comes to graduating?\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker B: Mostly about starting a new chapter in my life and pursuing my passion. That's great! I can't wait to graduate from college.\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker A: What are you planning to study?\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker B: I'm hoping to study theater.\n[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker A: That's really cool! Do you have any tips for balancing your\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker B: Speaking of tips, I think it's important to stay organized and manage your time well. But what were you going to ask about tips for students?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Each speaker's turn builds directly on the previous one, ensuring a smooth and relevant flow of conversation.\n\n*   **[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B:** Directly responds to Speaker A's compliment.\n*   **[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A:** Interrupts, but the question \"what are you excited about the most when it comes to graduating?\" is a direct follow-up to Speaker B's incomplete statement about being \"excited...about starting my [new phase]\". This shows active listening and relevance.\n*   **[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker B:** Provides a direct answer to Speaker A's question about excitement. The second part, \"That's great! I can't wait to graduate from college,\" while seeming like a self-congratulation, is coherent as Speaker B is simply reiterating their own excitement about their situation, which is the current topic.\n*   **[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker A:** \"What are you planning to study?\" logically follows Speaker B's mention of \"pursuing my passion\" and \"graduating from college.\"\n*   **[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker B:** Provides a direct and relevant answer.\n*   **[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker A:** \"That's really cool! Do you have any tips for balancing your\" is a relevant shift towards practical advice, building on Speaker B's identity as a student about to pursue a new path.\n*   **[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker B:** Demonstrates excellent relevance and coherence. Speaker B acknowledges the partial question about \"tips,\" immediately offers a relevant tip, and then prompts Speaker A to complete their original question, showing they understood the intent.\n\nOverall, the responses are consistently appropriate, logical, and maintain a clear topic thread.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high, demonstrating a natural and engaged conversation style.\n\n*   **Overlaps:**\n    *   **[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A overlapping Speaker B (1 second):** Speaker A begins speaking at 0:07 while Speaker B is still speaking until 0:08. This is a brief overlap. Crucially, Speaker A immediately acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which mitigates any disruption and shows good conversational etiquette. This type of overlap is common in enthusiastic or engaged dialogue.\n    *   **[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker B overlapping Speaker A (1 second):** Speaker B begins speaking at 0:27 while Speaker A is still speaking until 0:28. This is also a brief, 1-second overlap. Speaker B handles this very well by immediately addressing the topic Speaker A was about to introduce (\"Speaking of tips...\") and then actively prompting Speaker A to complete their thought (\"But what were you going to ask about tips for students?\"). This indicates active listening and a desire to maintain the flow, rather than disrupt it.\n\n*   **Pauses:**\n    *   There are no long pauses between turns. The gaps between turns are typically 0-1 second, which is natural and contributes to a dynamic and smooth conversational rhythm. For example, Speaker A ends at 0:03, Speaker B starts at 0:04 (1-second gap). Speaker B ends at 0:20, Speaker A starts at 0:20 (immediate follow-up). This indicates a responsive and fluid exchange.\n\nThe brief, managed overlaps and absence of long pauses indicate excellent interactional fluency, creating a natural and dynamic conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--454",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey! How are you?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: I'm doing well. I've never cooked before, but I am trying to become more involved in the kitchen.\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: Maybe you can start by trying out new recipes on weekends when you have more free\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: Actually, I was wondering, do you have any simple recipes for beginners?\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker A: I guess that's one option! What recipes do you like to make?\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B: Anything from Tom Colicchio's \"The Handmade Burger Co.\" cookbook is always a hit.\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker A: Haha, I'll give that a try! Do you have any food advice?\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker B: Remember to always let your food rest.\n[00:31 - 00:33] Speaker A: Oh okay. What do you like to eat?\n[00:34 - 00:36] Speaker B: I'm a big fan of brunch and Spanish food.\n[00:37 - 00:45] Speaker A: Breakfast is my favorite meal, so I'll try to cook brunch sometime! Oh, and about those simple recipes for beginners, any suggestions?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B introduces a new topic (\"never cooked before, trying to get involved in the kitchen\") which Speaker A immediately latches onto with a relevant suggestion. Speaker B then poses a question about simple recipes, which Speaker A acknowledges and then asks a follow-up about preferences to guide the recipe suggestion. The conversation then naturally progresses through different food-related topics (favorite recipes, food advice, what Speaker B likes to eat). A particularly strong point is Speaker A's final turn, where they connect with Speaker B's preference (\"brunch\") and then thoughtfully circle back to Speaker B's *earlier, unanswered question* about simple recipes for beginners. This shows excellent conversational recall and a commitment to addressing previously raised points, enhancing the overall coherence and logical flow. There are no abrupt, illogical shifts, and all responses are relevant to the ongoing conversation or a previously introduced topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits very good interactional fluency. There are no prolonged pauses between turns, with most transitions happening within 0-1 second, which is natural for conversation. There is one brief overlap between Speaker A's turn ending at 00:11 and Speaker B's turn starting at 00:10. This 1-second overlap is considered a brief, acceptable overlap as per the instructions and does not hinder the flow of conversation. The dialogue feels natural and responsive in its pacing.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--389",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Gross! What are you doing to yourself?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Chill! I'm just curling my eyelashes. It's\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: Wait, aren't those things dangerous? I mean, what if you accidentally pinch your eyelid or something?\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: You're such a wimp! You're afraid of an eyelash curler.\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker A: Well, you might pinch your eyelid! Or lose an eyeball!\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B: It just makes my eyelashes curl upwards. I was going to say that before you interrupted me.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates with a strong reaction and a question about Speaker B's activity. Speaker B responds directly, identifying the action (curling eyelashes). Speaker A's subsequent concerns about danger are directly related to the identified activity. Speaker B's playful dismissal of A's fears and A's re-emphasis of those fears maintain the core topic. Finally, Speaker B's concluding remark both clarifies the purpose of the curler and directly addresses the previous interruption by Speaker A, which is a meta-commentary on the interaction itself, making it highly relevant to the conversational flow and dynamics. No off-topic remarks or illogical leaps are present.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There is one overlap: Speaker A starts speaking at 0:04 while Speaker B finishes at 0:05. This is a 1-second overlap. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This specific overlap is brief and sounds natural, indicating an eager or slightly impolite interjection, which Speaker B even calls out later (\"I was going to say that before you interrupted me.\"). This acknowledgment further reinforces the naturalness of the interaction. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the longest pause is 1 second (between 0:17 and 0:18), which is considered acceptable and natural. Overall, the conversation flows smoothly without any detrimental pauses or prolonged overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 4
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--424",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Do you think Friedrich Nietzsche had any good ideas?\n[00:03 - 00:14] Speaker B: I think Nietzsche's philosophy is definitely worth considering. I've heard he says a lot of great things about the importance of living life to its fullest and not to worry about what other people think, which\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker A: Sorry, but do you mean his concept of the \"Übermensch\" or something else specifically?\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker B: That's interesting. What do you think?\n[00:21 - 00:29] Speaker A: I agree with Nietzsche on that! However, I was referring to his general philosophy on personal freedom and self-overcoming, which\n[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker B: I see, but don't you think some of his ideas might be a bit too radical for everyone to follow?\n[00:33 - 00:36] Speaker A: So you think Nietzsche's philosophy has something to offer?\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker B: I think his ideas on being happy and not worrying about what other people think are good things to keep in mind.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates a topic about Nietzsche's ideas, and Speaker B responds by sharing a positive, albeit vague, interpretation. Speaker A then seeks clarification, which Speaker B deflects by turning the question back to Speaker A. While this deflection isn't a direct answer, it's a common conversational move that keeps the topic alive and invites further input, maintaining logical flow. Speaker A then clarifies their own interest, which Speaker B acknowledges and then introduces a new, related facet (radicalism of ideas). Speaker A then seeks confirmation of Speaker B's overall stance, to which Speaker B responds consistently with their initial positive outlook. The conversation remains entirely coherent and focused on Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy, even with slight shifts in perspective or question-answering strategies. No responses are off-topic or illogical within the flow of the discussion.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are a few instances of brief overlaps (e.g., [00:13 - 00:18] where A starts while B is still speaking, and [00:28 - 00:33] where B starts while A is still speaking). These overlaps appear to be 1 second in duration, which aligns with the \"brief overlaps\" category mentioned as acceptable. There are no prolonged overlaps that would suggest speakers are talking over each other aggressively or having difficulty turn-taking. Similarly, the pauses between turns are very short (typically 1 second or immediate), indicating a natural and responsive conversational pace without any long, awkward silences. The flow is smooth and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--422",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Do you ever grow trees?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yeah! I think I'm about to start a plum tree.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: Oh that's nice! I want to grow a cherry tree!\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: Cherry trees are nice. I like growing grapes too. They're so elegant and beautiful.\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: That sounds nice! Have you grown any other fruit trees?\n[00:17 - 00:18] Speaker B: No - I don't have any space.\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker A: Oh yeah - I know what you mean! I don't have a lot of space either. Do you grow any herbs?\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker B: Yeah - I have some rosemary and mint. I'm hoping to grow basil soon too.\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker A: That sounds nice! I like to cook and it's a challenge to find fresh herbs sometimes.\n[00:36 - 00:40] Speaker B: Yeah, it's good to have fresh herbs! What about you - do you ever grow your\n[00:39 - 00:43] Speaker A: Actually, I was wondering, how do you manage pests in your herb garden?\n[00:44 - 00:50] Speaker B: I use natural remedies like neem oil and sometimes introduce beneficial insects. But I was asking if you ever garden?\n[00:51 - 00:54] Speaker A: I'm more into photography. I don't have a green thumb.\n[00:55 - 00:57] Speaker B: Do you prefer to grow flowers or food?\n[00:57 - 01:03] Speaker A: Food! I like growing veggies. I'm thinking about starting a strawberry bed.\n[01:03 - 01:08] Speaker B: Oh that's nice! Yeah I like vegetables too. Have you considered vertical gardening to save space?\n[01:08 - 01:11] Speaker A: No, I haven't. That sounds interesting!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speakers generally stay on topic, transitioning smoothly from trees to herbs, and then back to general gardening (specifically food gardening).\n- Speaker A initiates the conversation about growing trees, and Speaker B responds directly and elaborates.\n- Subsequent turns involve Speaker A asking follow-up questions or sharing related experiences, and Speaker B providing direct answers or contributing additional relevant information (e.g., about grapes).\n- The transition from fruit trees to herbs, driven by the common constraint of 'space', is logical and coherent.\n- Speaker A's interruption at [00:39 - 00:43] with a question about pest management is relevant to the topic of 'herb garden', even if it cuts off Speaker B. Speaker B handles this well by answering the question first and then reasserting their original question (\"But I was asking if you ever garden?\"), demonstrating good conversational memory and logical flow.\n- Speaker A then appropriately answers Speaker B's re-posed question.\n- Speaker B's subsequent question (\"Do you prefer to grow flowers or food?\") initially seems slightly misaligned after Speaker A's \"I don't have a green thumb\" but it serves to narrow down A's interest within gardening, leading to A's clarification about growing vegetables, which is a perfectly relevant continuation.\n- The dialogue concludes with Speaker B offering a relevant suggestion (vertical gardening) based on the earlier 'space' issue and Speaker A's newfound interest in growing vegetables.\nOverall, the responses are consistently relevant, the topic coherence is maintained, and logical progression is evident.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent fluency with minimal disruptions.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap identified:\n    - [00:36 - 00:40] Speaker B: Yeah, it's good to have fresh herbs! What about you - do you ever grow your\n    - [00:39 - 00:43] Speaker A: Actually, I was wondering, how do you manage pests in your herb garden?\n    This overlap lasts for 1 second (from 00:39 to 00:40). As per the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This is a natural occurrence where Speaker A anticipates or interjects, but it does not constitute an \"extended overlap\" that would harm fluency.\n- **Pauses:** All pauses between speaker turns are consistently 1 second in duration (e.g., 00:12-00:13, 00:16-00:17, 00:18-00:19, 00:43-00:44, 00:50-00:51, 00:54-00:55). These are considered \"small pauses\" and are perfectly acceptable and natural in conversation, indicating active listening and turn-taking without awkward silence.\nThe conversation flows naturally without any prolonged pauses or extended overlapping turns, indicating high interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--73697",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Amberly, can you provide another example?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Sure. A customer recently purchased our product and was very satisfied with the level\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but how does the product work in different types of scenarios?\n[00:11 - 00:21] Speaker B: It works great in all types of scenarios. I was going to mention that the customer used it in a particularly challenging environment, and it still performed exceptionally well.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is strong.\n*   **Speaker B** initially responds directly to **Speaker A's** request for an example.\n*   **Speaker A's** interruption, while shifting the immediate focus, asks a question directly related to the product **Speaker B** was discussing. This maintains topic coherence.\n*   **Speaker B** then skillfully answers **Speaker A's** new question (\"It works great in all types of scenarios\") and immediately re-contextualizes their original example to specifically address the new question about challenging scenarios (\"I was going to mention that the customer used it in a particularly challenging environment, and it still performed exceptionally well.\"). This demonstrates excellent logical consistency and an ability to adapt while still conveying the intended information, showing a high degree of relevance and coherence in the face of an interruption.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good, despite a brief overlap.\n*   There's a 1-second pause between Speaker A's initial question and Speaker B's response, which is natural.\n*   There is a brief overlap between Speaker B (ending at 0:07) and Speaker A (starting at 0:06). This overlap lasts for 1 second (from 0:06 to 0:07). **Speaker A** immediately acknowledges the interruption with \"Sorry to cut in,\" which mitigates the negative impact of the overlap. According to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This 1-second overlap, acknowledged by Speaker A, falls into the \"brief\" category and does not seem to hinder the conversation's flow significantly.\n*   There are no long pauses between turns. The conversation flows continuously.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--505",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi, how are you?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm doing great! I'd love to learn more about gardening.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm happy to teach you anything that I know about\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Actually, I was wondering, do you have any recommendations for beginner-friendly plants?\n[00:12 - 00:22] Speaker A: Sure, I can suggest some easy-to-grow plants like basil, mint, and tomatoes. However, I haven't mentioned the importance of soil quality yet which plays\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: Oh, soil quality is crucial! But I'm also curious about how often I should be watering these plants.\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker A: Great! I'll start planning out my garden today.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a significant breakdown in **Response Relevance** towards the end.\n\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A & B (Opening and topic introduction):** Both turns are perfectly relevant and logically consistent, initiating the conversation and setting the topic (gardening).\n2.  **[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A & B (Offering help & specific question):** Speaker A's offer to teach is relevant. Speaker B's specific question about beginner-friendly plants is a logical follow-up within the gardening topic, demonstrating topic coherence.\n3.  **[00:12 - 00:22] Speaker A (Plant recommendations & new sub-topic):** Speaker A directly answers the question about plants and then introduces a relevant related sub-topic (soil quality). This shows good logical consistency and topic coherence by expanding on the general theme.\n4.  **[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B (Acknowledgement & new question):** Speaker B acknowledges the importance of soil quality, showing logical consistency, and then immediately poses another relevant question about watering frequency. This maintains topic coherence and shows an active learner.\n5.  **[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker A (Final turn):** This is where the **significant issue** arises. Speaker B just asked a direct, specific question (\"how often I should be watering these plants?\"). Speaker A completely ignores this question and instead says, \"Great! I'll start planning out my garden today.\" This response is illogical in context, does not follow from B's question, and reverses the established roles (A is supposed to be the teacher/expert, B the learner). It breaks logical consistency and topic coherence abruptly, acting as if Speaker A is the one learning or ending the conversation with an unrelated personal statement. This is a severe flaw in conversational relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue's **Interactional Fluency** is generally appropriate.\n\n1.  **Overlaps:**\n    *   There is a brief overlap from [00:07 - 00:08] where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their turn (1 second overlap).\n    *   There is another brief overlap from [00:21 - 00:22] where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their turn (1 second overlap).\n    Both of these are short, typical in natural conversation, and fall under the \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\" criterion. They do not constitute \"extended overlaps.\"\n2.  **Pauses:** There are no noticeable long pauses between speaker turns that would disrupt the flow of the conversation. The transitions between turns are relatively quick and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--314",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Oh, it's getting late. I've got to run. It was nice talking to you, Karren.\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: Thanks, Tim. Nice meeting you, too. By the way, before you go, do you know if we'll have another chance to discuss the\n[00:10 - 00:19] Speaker A: Sorry to cut you off, but I actually wanted to ask if you're attending the conference next week? I think it would be a great opportunity to catch up again.\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: I hadn't planned on it, but now that you mention it, I might consider going. What were you about to ask before?\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker A: I was just wondering if we'll have another chance to run into each other before the conference.\n[00:31 - 00:33] Speaker B: Yeah, I hope so. Well, take it easy.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good logical consistency and topic coherence overall.\n- Speaker A initiates the farewell, and Speaker B responds appropriately, attempting to extend the conversation with a quick question.\n- Speaker A's interruption is acknowledged with an apology (\"Sorry to cut you off\"), which maintains politeness and conversational flow. Speaker A then introduces a new, but related, topic (conference) as a means of catching up, which logically follows the 'nice talking to you' sentiment and the desire to meet again.\n- Speaker B responds directly to the conference question and then smartly asks, \"What were you about to ask before?\". This question is crucial. It can be interpreted in two ways:\n    1.  What was *A* about to ask *before* he interrupted *me*? (referring to A's own intended question about the conference)\n    2.  What was *I* (B) about to ask before *you* (A) cut *me* off? (referring to B's own interrupted sentence).\n    Given the phrasing \"What were *you* about to ask before?\", it most naturally refers to Speaker A's intent. Speaker A had *already asked* about the conference. So, Speaker A's response, \"I was just wondering if we'll have another chance to run into each other before the conference,\" serves as a clarification of the *underlying reason* or *motivation* for asking about the conference, rather than a direct re-statement of the question itself. It explains *why* he brought up the conference. While not a perfectly crisp answer to \"what were you *about to ask*,\" it provides relevant context and intent, making it logically consistent within the interaction.\n- Speaker B's final farewell acknowledges A's last statement and closes the loop appropriately.\n\nThere are no significant issues with logical consistency or topic coherence. The conversation flows from a farewell to a potential future meeting, with a brief, slightly nuanced, clarification in between.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- The turns follow each other very naturally with minimal gaps.\n- There is one identified overlap: `[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B` and `[00:10 - 00:19] Speaker A`. Speaker A begins speaking at 00:10 while Speaker B finishes at 00:11, resulting in a 1-second overlap. This is a brief overlap and is immediately addressed by Speaker A (\"Sorry to cut you off\"). This makes the overlap feel natural and realistic, rather than disruptive or harmful. The apology demonstrates awareness of the overlap and maintains politeness, enhancing the natural feel of the conversation.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pace is brisk and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--142",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Is there anything wrong?\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm worried about my daughter. She can't decide about which college\n[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but is it the college choices that are overwhelming her, or is there something else that's causing the indecision?\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: It's mainly about college. She disagrees with me about everything.\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: I see. You should encourage her to make up her mind by herself. You shouldn't push her\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker B: I get that, but what if she makes a choice that she might regret later? I just want to give her some tips.\n[00:27 - 00:37] Speaker A: Absolutely, but have you tried talking to her about why she disagrees with your suggestions? Maybe understanding her perspective could help guide your advice better.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement.\n- Speaker A's initial question is general, and Speaker B's response about her daughter's college decision is a direct and relevant answer.\n- Speaker A's follow-up question, though an interruption, is relevant as it seeks to clarify the core issue behind the indecision, showing active listening and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's clarification \"It's mainly about college. She disagrees with me about everything\" keeps the topic focused while adding a new dimension to the problem (disagreement with the parent).\n- Speaker A's advice to \"encourage her to make up her mind by herself\" and \"not push her\" is a logical next step based on the information provided.\n- Speaker B's counter-argument about \"what if she makes a choice that she might regret later?\" and wanting to \"give her some tips\" is a natural and relevant concern following A's advice.\n- Speaker A's final suggestion to \"talk to her about why she disagrees\" directly addresses B's concern and offers a constructive approach, maintaining the logical flow and problem-solving aspect of the conversation.\nThe conversation maintains topic coherence throughout, moving from identifying a problem to seeking advice and exploring solutions, all while staying focused on the daughter's college decision and the parent-child dynamic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good, reflecting natural conversation dynamics.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - `[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker A:` overlaps `[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B:` by 1 second (0:04-0:05). Speaker A also explicitly says \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which is a natural conversational marker acknowledging the overlap. This is a brief and acceptable overlap.\n    - `[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker B:` overlaps `[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A:` by 1 second (0:21-0:22). This is also a brief and acceptable overlap.\n- There is one instance of a brief pause:\n    - A 1-second pause occurs between `[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker B:` ending and `[00:27 - 00:37] Speaker A:` beginning. This 1-second pause is considered small and acceptable, allowing for processing time without feeling unnatural or awkward.\nOverall, the timing of turns, including the brief overlaps and short pause, contributes to a natural and fluent conversation without being disruptive or harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--235",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Good morning, this is Ann broadcasting from university radio and in the studio we have Robin, president of the Martha Bicycle Club with us.\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker B: Good morning, everyone.\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker A: Robin, can you tell us what the mountain lake cycle tour is all about?\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: Well, Ann, the tour today is not a race. People do it for fitness and fun and try to enjoy the\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A: Sorry, but I was wondering, do you think the weather will affect the cyclists today?\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker B: The weather is actually perfect for cycling today—cool and clear. But as I was saying, people try to better their time every year.\n[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker A: How long will it take to cycle one way, Robin?\n[00:34 - 00:39] Speaker B: About seven to nine hours for the average cyclists. Good cyclists can do it in four hours.\n[00:40 - 00:42] Speaker A: How many people will be taking part this year?\n[00:42 - 00:46] Speaker B: This is our biggest year ever. We have twelve hundred cyclists registered.\n[00:47 - 00:50] Speaker A: I doubt they'll block the road when the cyclists start out?\n[00:50 - 01:01] Speaker B: Don't worry, we've introduced the staggered starts to avoid these problems. Our first group will leave Ottawa at seven o'clock. Oh, I didn't mention, the last group will leave at eight-thirty to ensure a smooth start for everyone.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B consistently answers Speaker A's questions directly and provides relevant information about the cycle tour. A notable point is Speaker B's handling of the interruption at [00:19 - 00:24]. Speaker A interjects with a question about the weather while Speaker B is explaining the tour's purpose. Speaker B addresses the weather question promptly (\"The weather is actually perfect for cycling today—cool and clear\") and then skillfully returns to the original topic by saying, \"But as I was saying, people try to better their time every year.\" This demonstrates excellent topic coherence and conversational control, ensuring the dialogue flows logically despite the brief topic shift. There are no instances where responses are off-topic or inconsistent with the preceding questions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\nThere is one brief overlap:\n*   **[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A:** begins speaking at [00:19], while **[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B:** is still speaking until [00:20]. This results in a 1-second overlap. According to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this 1-second overlap falls into that category. It is not prolonged and sounds natural, indicating a dynamic conversation rather than a disruptive one.\n\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are quick and natural (e.g., 0-1 second pauses), contributing to a smooth and continuous flow of conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--466",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Did you know that she was one of the first female leaders in history?\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker B: Yeah, but she wasn't the first woman to become a ruler in Europe. I heard that Sophia of Hanover was the first European female ruler.\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker A: How could you forget Queen Victoria? She's so famous.\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: You're right! How could I forget her? I've had to memorize her entire life story for the history exam\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker A: Wait, did you memorize any interesting facts about her reign? I'm curious.\n[00:25 - 00:27] Speaker B: Oh yeah, so what did you get on the test?\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker A: It was pretty tough, but I think I managed to pull it together at\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker B: I felt the same way! Some of those questions were really tricky. So, how did you actually do?\n[00:37 - 00:39] Speaker A: I actually got 100%!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance throughout most of the conversation.\n- Speaker B's initial response [00:03 - 00:10] directly addresses Speaker A's claim about \"first female leaders\" by providing a counter-example and historical correction, maintaining logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker A's follow-up about Queen Victoria [00:11 - 00:14] is a relevant challenge, which Speaker B acknowledges and elaborates on [00:15 - 00:20], tying it to the \"history exam.\"\n- Speaker A's question at [00:19 - 00:25] about \"interesting facts about her reign\" logically flows from Speaker B's mention of memorizing Queen Victoria's life story for the exam.\n- However, at [00:25 - 00:27], Speaker B shifts the topic from \"facts about Victoria's reign\" to \"what did you get on the test?\" While the \"test\" was previously mentioned by Speaker B, this is an abrupt pivot from Speaker A's specific question. It's not completely illogical as the test is related, but it deviates from the immediate conversational thread.\n- The subsequent turns [00:28 - 00:39] are then perfectly relevant and consistent with this new topic of the test results.\n\nOverall, the slight topic shift is a minor point. The conversation largely maintains coherence and logical progression, even adapting well to the shift initiated by Speaker B.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the conversation flows smoothly with minimal gaps.\n- There are several instances of brief overlaps, such as Speaker A starting at 00:19 while Speaker B finishes at 00:20, and Speaker B starting at 00:31 while Speaker A finishes at 00:32. These are typically 1-second overlaps. The instructions state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these examples fall into that category. They indicate an engaged and dynamic conversation where speakers are anticipating and responding quickly, rather than extended, disruptive overlaps.\n- The timing of turns feels very natural and spontaneous.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--22834",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm such a mess, I can't even find my keys half the time. It's\n[00:03 - 00:11] Speaker B: Yeah, I can see that. Your desk is covered in papers and your closet is full of clothes that are all thrown in haphazardly. Have you considered—\n[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker A: I know, it's so frustrating. I can never find anything when I need it, and I'm always running late because I can't keep track of where I\n[00:19 - 00:27] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but do you think part of the issue might be that you're trying to do too much at once? Maybe if you focused on one thing at a time, it could help with the organization.\n[00:28 - 00:40] Speaker A: That's a good point. I do tend to juggle a lot of things at once. I was going to mention that I've tried using a planner, but I always forget to update it, and things just start falling through the cracks again.\n[00:40 - 00:55] Speaker B: Well, maybe you just need to be a little more disciplined about staying on top of things. Just take some time each day to tidy up your desk and put things away in their proper place. It'll take some effort at first, but eventually, it'll become second nature and you'll be more organized overall.\n[00:55 - 01:02] Speaker A: You make a valid point. Maybe I'll try that and see if it makes a difference. Thanks for the advice!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides comments and suggestions that are logically consistent with Speaker A's expressed frustrations about disorganization. For example, Speaker B's observation about A's messy desk directly supports A's opening statement. Later, Speaker B's suggestion about focusing on one thing at a time or being more disciplined directly addresses the issue of A's inability to maintain organization or use a planner effectively. Speaker A, in turn, acknowledges B's points (\"That's a good point,\" \"You make a valid point\") and builds upon them by providing further context or accepting the advice. The topic coherence is excellent, with the conversation staying focused on the theme of disorganization, its causes, and potential solutions throughout. There are no abrupt topic shifts or illogical responses from either speaker.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are two instances of brief overlaps ([00:03 - 00:04] and [00:19 - 00:20]), each lasting only one second. These are very common in natural conversation, often indicating active listening, agreement, or an eagerness to contribute, rather than disruption. Speaker B even explicitly acknowledges one overlap with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which further enhances the naturalness of the interaction. The pauses between speaker turns are consistently short, typically one second or less. There are no prolonged pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps that would hinder the flow of conversation. The turns are well-timed, making the dialogue feel natural and fluid.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--341",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Jack! Do you want to see a picture of my new puppy?\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: Sure. I thought people only showed off pictures of their new babies, not new pets. But\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: Oh, but this is my new baby. He's just as much trouble. That's for sure! But, he's a lot of fun!\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: I see what you mean. He's really cute. By the way, how old is he?\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker A: Oh, I didn't get to mention that earlier. He's just 8 weeks old!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement, maintaining a coherent flow.\n- Speaker A initiates clearly about the puppy.\n- Speaker B responds affirmatively and then adds a playful, relevant comment comparing pets to babies. This comment sets up Speaker A's next turn.\n- Speaker A directly addresses Speaker B's comparison, embracing the \"new baby\" analogy for the puppy and elaborating on it, which is logically consistent with the lighthearted tone.\n- Speaker B acknowledges Speaker A's sentiment and then naturally transitions to a follow-up question about the puppy's age, showing engagement and topic coherence.\n- Speaker A provides a direct answer to the age question, along with a natural conversational filler (\"Oh, I didn't get to mention that earlier\").\nThe conversation stays entirely on topic, and the progression of information and sentiment feels natural and logical.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There is one brief overlap at [00:07 - 00:14] where Speaker A starts speaking 1 second before Speaker B finishes their previous turn. This is a \"brief overlap\" (1 second) and is acceptable as per the instructions, sounding like natural eager turn-taking in a friendly conversation rather than a disruptive interruption. Speaker B's sentence ends with \"But\", which might have been a natural cue for Speaker A to jump in.\n- There is a small pause between [00:18] and [00:19] (1 second) before Speaker A responds. This is a \"small pause\" and is perfectly acceptable, allowing for natural processing time.\nThere are no \"extended overlaps\" or \"long pauses\" that would hinder the conversation's flow. The pacing feels natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--32",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hello, this is Francis.\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Hi, this is Monica. I was wondering when we can work on this financial report.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker A: Today, I am busy all day with back-to-back\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but is there any chance you can squeeze in some time tomorrow morning? I just want to ensure we don't fall behind.\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker A: Tomorrow morning is packed as well, unfortunately. But I was about to suggest Friday. Shall I see you on Friday morning?\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B: That's not good for me at all. It'll have to be another time.\n[00:27 - 00:37] Speaker A: We must find some time to read the report. I know it's important. How about Friday afternoon? I'm available from 1 PM to 4 PM.\n[00:37 - 00:40] Speaker B: That works for me. Then see you on Friday afternoon.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance throughout. Each speaker's turn is a direct and logical follow-up to the previous statement. Speaker B initiates the topic of the financial report, and Speaker A immediately addresses availability. When Speaker A is cut off, Speaker B's interruption is contextually relevant, asking for an alternative time while acknowledging the cut-off. The back-and-forth negotiation of schedules is clear, coherent, and goal-oriented (finding a time to meet). There are no irrelevant detours or inconsistencies in the conversation flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency with one notable instance of overlap. At `[00:09]`, Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still talking (`[00:07 - 00:10]`). This results in a 1-second overlap. However, Speaker B immediately acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which acts as a conversational repair mechanism, indicating awareness and politeness. Given that the overlap is brief (1 second) and immediately addressed by the speaker, it does not significantly hinder the conversational flow or understanding. The instructions state that \"brief overlaps are acceptable.\" There are no long pauses between turns. Overall, the conversation feels natural and efficient.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--92635",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:11] Speaker A: Well, as you know, I've been having some trouble in school lately. My grades have been slipping and I'm behind in a lot of my classes. I'm starting to feel like I'm not smart enough to\n[00:10 - 00:19] Speaker B: Denali, I want to stop you right there. It's not about being smart enough. Sometimes, even the brightest students face challenges. What specifically do you feel is holding you back?\n[00:20 - 00:30] Speaker A: I think it's a combination of things—maybe the workload, and sometimes I just feel overwhelmed. But honestly, I just feel so behind and like I'm never going to catch up.\n[00:31 - 00:39] Speaker B: Denali, it's normal to feel that way when you're struggling in school. But I want you to know that you can catch up. It might take some time and effort, but I know you have\n[00:38 - 00:44] Speaker A: I appreciate that, Ms. Jones, but what if I can't catch up? What if I just keep falling further behind?\n[00:45 - 00:54] Speaker B: That's a valid concern, but remember, you're not alone in this. We can work together to create a plan that helps you manage your workload better and provides the support you need.\n[00:54 - 00:58] Speaker A: Thank you, Ms. Jones. Just talking to you makes me feel a little better.\n[00:59 - 01:03] Speaker B: You're welcome, Denali. If you ever need to talk, don't hesitate to come see me.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Speaker B consistently addresses Speaker A's concerns directly and empathetically.\n- When Speaker A expresses feeling \"not smart enough\" and being behind, Speaker B immediately reframes it, validates the feeling (\"it's not about being smart enough\"), and asks for specific challenges. This shows active listening and a desire to understand the root cause.\n- When Speaker A elaborates on feeling overwhelmed and unable to catch up, Speaker B offers validation (\"it's normal to feel that way\") and encouragement (\"you can catch up\"), maintaining a supportive and constructive tone.\n- When Speaker A expresses further doubt (\"what if I can't catch up?\"), Speaker B acknowledges the \"valid concern\" and offers a concrete plan of action (\"work together to create a plan that helps you manage your workload better and provides the support you need\").\nThe logical consistency is high, with each turn building upon the previous one, and the topic coherence is perfectly maintained throughout the conversation about academic struggles and support. Speaker B's responses are always appropriate and move the conversation forward productively.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are two brief overlaps identified:\n    - `[00:10 - 00:19] Speaker B:` starts at 00:10 while `[00:00 - 00:11] Speaker A:` is still speaking. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly states \"I want to stop you right there,\" indicating a deliberate and natural interruption to offer immediate reassurance, which is acceptable and common in supportive conversations.\n    - `[00:38 - 00:44] Speaker A:` starts at 00:38 while `[00:31 - 00:39] Speaker B:` is still speaking. This is also a 1-second overlap. Speaker A interjects with \"I appreciate that, Ms. Jones,\" which is a natural interjection of gratitude or a quick follow-up question while the other speaker is still concluding their thought.\n- There are brief pauses between turns (e.g., 1 second between 00:30 and 00:31, 00:44 and 00:45, 00:58 and 00:59). These are natural and do not indicate hesitation or awkwardness.\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would disrupt the flow of the conversation. The brief overlaps and pauses contribute to a natural, fluid conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--279",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I'm going to take a nap.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: You should unplug the Wi-Fi router\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker A: Oh, good point! I don't want any interruptions.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker B: Do you want me to wake you in an hour?\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker A: No, thanks. Just let me sleep until I wake up.\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker B: I'll start dinner at 6:00.\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: Okay. I think I'll be awake by then.\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker B: If not, your nose will wake you up.\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker A: You mean I will smell the food cooking, especially\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker B: Sorry, I just remembered, did you unplug the phone?\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker A: Oh, no, I almost forgot! Thanks for reminding me.\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker B: No problem. You might even dream about dinner.\n[00:30 - 00:34] Speaker A: I don't think I'm going to dream about anything. I'm really tired.\n[00:34 - 00:35] Speaker B: Have a nice nap.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement, maintaining clear topic coherence throughout.\n\n*   Speaker B's initial suggestion to unplug the Wi-Fi router is a logical and relevant piece of advice for someone going to take a nap, addressing potential interruptions. Speaker A's response \"Oh, good point! I don't want any interruptions\" directly acknowledges this advice and confirms its relevance.\n*   The conversation then naturally progresses to related nap-time considerations, such as waking up time (\"Do you want me to wake you in an hour?\") and dinner plans (\"I'll start dinner at 6:00\").\n*   The humorous interjection from Speaker B, \"If not, your nose will wake you up,\" is a playful yet coherent follow-up to the discussion about waking up for dinner.\n*   Speaker B's abrupt \"Sorry, I just remembered, did you unplug the phone?\" might seem like a topic shift, but it is immediately followed by \"Sorry, I just remembered,\" indicating a natural human interjection. Crucially, the topic of unplugging the phone is logically consistent with the earlier theme of preventing interruptions during the nap (like unplugging the Wi-Fi router). This demonstrates a good memory of the overall goal of the conversation. Speaker A's response \"Oh, no, I almost forgot! Thanks for reminding me\" confirms the relevance and helpfulness of the reminder.\n*   The final exchanges about dreaming about dinner and being tired conclude the interaction naturally, bringing it back to the initial context of Speaker A's nap.\n\nAll responses are logically consistent, and the conversation flows coherently despite a minor, naturally occurring digression.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent fluency, with natural turn-taking and acceptable timing.\n\n*   **Pauses:** Most turns have 0-second pauses, indicating very smooth, immediate transitions between speakers. The few instances of a 1-second pause (e.g., between A's \"I'm going to take a nap\" and B's \"You should unplug the Wi-Fi router\"; between A's \"I don't want any interruptions\" and B's \"Do you want me to wake you...\") are brief and natural, allowing for processing or initiating a new thought. There are no long or prolonged pauses that would disrupt the flow.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps identified:\n    *   [00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B finishes \"Wi-Fi router\" as [00:02 - 00:05] Speaker A starts \"Oh, good point!\". This 1-second overlap is very brief and typical of natural, enthusiastic conversation where one speaker anticipates or is eager to respond. It does not feel like an interruption.\n    *   [00:20 - 00:21] Speaker A is still saying \"especially\" as [00:20 - 00:23] Speaker B starts \"Sorry, I just remembered...\". This 1-second overlap is also brief. Speaker B explicitly interjects with \"Sorry, I just remembered,\" which is a common and natural conversational device for interrupting briefly when a new thought arises. This is an acceptable and often fluent element of real-world speech.\n\nNeither the pauses nor the overlaps hinder the understanding or flow of the conversation. They contribute to a natural and dynamic interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--126647",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, thanks for coming in today. I really appreciate it.\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: No problem, just happy to help out however I can. So what do you need me to assist with?\n[00:08 - 00:18] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, I just realized I should mention—things have been a little hectic lately, so I could use an extra set of hands with the day-to-day operations.\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B: Sure, no problem. I'm happy to help out however I can. What do you need me to do?\n[00:23 - 00:32] Speaker A: Well, I was thinking you could help me with the paperwork. I've been falling behind a little bit and it would be a big help if you could take care of some of\n[00:31 - 00:39] Speaker B: Oh, paperwork? I can definitely handle that. By the way, is there anything specific that's causing the backlog, or is it just the overall workload?\n[00:39 - 00:49] Speaker A: It's mostly the overall workload, but there have been a few unexpected issues that took up more time than I anticipated. Thanks again, I really appreciate it.\n[00:49 - 00:51] Speaker B: No problem, happy to help out.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance throughout.\n- Speaker B's initial question \"So what do you need me to assist with?\" is a direct and logical follow-up to Speaker A's opening.\n- Speaker A's subsequent explanation about needing \"an extra set of hands with the day-to-day operations\" provides a coherent context.\n- Speaker B's repeated willingness to help and precise question \"What do you need me to do?\" keeps the conversation on track towards defining the specific task.\n- Speaker A's suggestion of \"paperwork\" directly addresses B's question.\n- Speaker B's follow-up question, \"is there anything specific that's causing the backlog, or is it just the overall workload?\", demonstrates active listening and a logical progression of the topic, seeking to understand the root cause of the problem.\n- Speaker A's answer effectively addresses B's query, maintaining topic coherence.\n- The closing exchanges are polite and relevant acknowledgements of gratitude and willingness to help.\nThe conversation flows logically, and each turn builds meaningfully on the previous one, maintaining high topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural flow and responsiveness from both participants.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - `[00:08 - 00:18] Speaker A:` starts at 0:08 while `[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B:` is still speaking. Speaker A explicitly says \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and is a natural conversational repair, not a disruptive extended overlap. The overlap is only for 1 second.\n    - `[00:31 - 00:39] Speaker B:` starts at 0:31 while `[00:23 - 00:32] Speaker A:` is still speaking. This is a very common and brief overlap (1 second) where Speaker B anticipates the end of Speaker A's sentence and jumps in, which is indicative of natural, fluid conversation rather than a prolonged interruption.\nThese brief overlaps are typical of natural speech and do not constitute \"extended overlaps\" that harm fluency. Overall, the conversation is highly interactive and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--68086",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm just feeling a little weak and scared. I don't know if I can handle everything\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: I understand how you feel, but have you been eating well and getting enough rest? That might help with the weakness.\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker A: I've been trying, but it's hard to keep up with everything. I'm not sure if I can take care of myself the way\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker B: You don't have to do it alone. I'm here to help, and we can figure out a plan together.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B consistently acknowledges Speaker A's emotional state and concerns before offering relevant advice or support.\n- Speaker A expresses feeling \"weak and scared\" and overwhelmed.\n- Speaker B's first response, \"I understand how you feel, but have you been eating well and getting enough rest? That might help with the weakness,\" directly addresses the stated \"weakness\" and shows empathy for their feelings. This is a logical and helpful response.\n- Speaker A's follow-up, \"I've been trying, but it's hard to keep up with everything. I'm not sure if I can take care of myself the way,\" responds to the suggestion and further elaborates on their feeling of being overwhelmed and unable to cope. This maintains logical consistency.\n- Speaker B's final response, \"You don't have to do it alone. I'm here to help, and we can figure out a plan together,\" directly addresses Speaker A's feeling of inability to care for themselves and offers concrete support, which is perfectly coherent with the ongoing topic of Speaker A's struggle and need for help.\nThe topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on Speaker A's well-being and the support offered by Speaker B.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is one brief overlap noted at [00:04 - 00:05] where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap, which falls under the \"brief overlaps are acceptable\" criteria as per the instructions. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between speakers are natural and conversational, indicating a smooth flow without awkward silences or interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--60462",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Hey, Dad. I was just reading about the history of our family and I noticed that we have a lot of British ancestors.\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker B: Yeah, that's right. Our family has been in America for a long time, but we've always had ties to the traditions\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: Why is that? I mean, did they keep in touch with relatives back in Britain, or was it more about cultural ties?\n[00:19 - 00:30] Speaker B: Well, I guess it's because our ancestors came from there. They were probably looking for a better life or maybe they were just exploring. Who knows? But whatever the reason, they ended up in America and started a new life with the\n[00:29 - 00:36] Speaker A: I can't even imagine how challenging that must have been. Do you think they had any regrets about leaving everything behind?\n[00:36 - 00:51] Speaker B: It must have been tough, especially at first. They didn't have all the conveniences we have today and they had to start from scratch in a new country. But they made the best of it and eventually thrived here. And now we're carrying on their legacy by continuing to make our own mark on this country.\n[00:51 - 00:57] Speaker A: That's true. We are definitely a country of immigrants. And I'm proud to be part of that history.\n[00:58 - 00:59] Speaker B: Me too, son. Me too.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining a consistent topic of family history, British ancestry, immigration, and legacy.\n- Speaker A introduces the topic of British ancestors.\n- Speaker B confirms and adds context about being in America but maintaining ties.\n- Speaker A asks a direct clarifying question about the nature of those \"ties.\"\n- Speaker B provides a relevant explanation for the ancestors' migration.\n- Speaker A expresses empathy and asks a logical follow-up question about the challenges faced by immigrants.\n- Speaker B addresses the challenges and emphasizes the positive outcome and legacy, directly responding to A's sentiment.\n- Speaker A acknowledges B's points and expresses pride, tying back to the overall theme.\n- Speaker B provides a concise, affirming closure.\nThere are no instances of topic drift or illogical responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is also excellent.\n- **Extended Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps identified ([00:12 - 00:13] and [00:29 - 00:30]). Both are approximately 1 second in duration. These are very short and appear to be natural, collaborative overlaps where one speaker starts speaking just as the other is finishing, indicating active listening and engagement rather than disruptive interruptions. The prompt states that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these fit that description. There are no prolonged or harmful overlapping turns.\n- **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and seamless, contributing to a natural and dynamic conversation flow. The longest pause observed is 1 second at [00:58], which is perfectly normal and contributes to natural rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--383",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:19] Speaker A: What we've learned is the fact that he left the Level One Club, which is a drinking club in Neasden Lane, about 1:30 a.m., and we're trying to account for movements up till 2:15 a.m., because it was about that time he was found by a member of the club, an employee. He was found in the underpass, the pedestrian way, under the North Circular Road. Death was due to multiple head injuries. We understand that there may have been two girls and a man who was drunk in close proximity to the entrance to the subway, who may have seen the man walking in that direction, or any attacker who may have been lingering around\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but do you have any descriptions of the two girls and the man? It might help narrow down the search.\n[00:25 - 00:40] Speaker A: Unfortunately, we don't have detailed descriptions yet. However, I was going to mention that we believe there may have been other witnesses, such as minicab drivers parked in the area, who might have seen something. We still need to identify those individuals.\n[00:40 - 00:43] Speaker B: And how far away from the Neasden underpass was the drinking club?\n[00:44 - 00:54] Speaker A: Fifty meters. But as I was saying earlier, we haven't been able to identify the minicab drivers or any other people who might have been in the area at the time.\n[00:54 - 01:03] Speaker B: I see. So, aside from the two girls, the drunken man, and possibly the minicab drivers, there's no one else you're looking to speak with at the moment?\n[01:03 - 01:14] Speaker A: Yes, that's correct. The club closed at half past one, so there might have been other people who left the club around that time. We're hoping any of them might come forward with information.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout.\n*   **Speaker B's initial interruption (00:18 - 00:24)** is relevant, seeking clarification on a crucial detail (descriptions of witnesses) that Speaker A just introduced. The \"Sorry to interrupt\" acknowledges the turn-taking norm, further indicating relevance.\n*   **Speaker A's response (00:25 - 00:40)** directly addresses B's question by stating they lack descriptions and then coherently transitions to other potential witnesses (minicab drivers), maintaining the topic of gathering information.\n*   **Speaker B's question about distance (00:40 - 00:43)** is also relevant, providing geographical context to the initial details about the club and the underpass.\n*   **Speaker A's reply (00:44 - 00:54)** answers the distance question and then circles back to the earlier point about unidentified witnesses, reinforcing the investigative scope. This shows logical continuation and persistence of topic.\n*   **Speaker B's summary question (00:54 - 01:03)** demonstrates active listening and attempts to confirm the current investigative focus, which is highly relevant to the ongoing discussion.\n*   **Speaker A's final response (01:03 - 01:14)** confirms B's understanding and then elaborates on another group of potential witnesses (club-goers), showing a comprehensive and consistent approach to the topic.\nOverall, the conversation is highly coherent, logically consistent, and each turn builds upon or clarifies previous information, making it very effective for information exchange.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n*   **[00:18 - 00:24] Overlap:** There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker A (ends 00:19) and Speaker B (starts 00:18). This is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" making it an acceptable and natural brief overlap rather than a disruptive one. It signals Speaker B's eagerness to ask a relevant question without waiting for a full pause.\n*   **Pauses:** All other turn transitions are either immediate (00:40-00:40, 00:54-00:54, 01:03-01:03) or involve a very brief 1-second pause (00:24-00:25, 00:43-00:44). These are natural and do not indicate any breakdown in communication or hesitation. There are no long or extended pauses that would hinder the flow of the conversation.\nThe speakers maintain a smooth back-and-forth, demonstrating effective turn-taking without awkward silences or disruptive prolonged overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--32142",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, how are you doing today?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm doing well, thank you. How are you?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm good. Just enjoying my day. So what have you been up to\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but I was wondering if you had any plans for the weekend?\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: Not much, just hanging out with friends and family. What about you? Do\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker B: Oh, that sounds nice! I was thinking of doing something similar, maybe a small get-together.\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker A: Yeah, same here. Just enjoying my time with the people I love.\n[00:25 - 00:27] Speaker B: That's great. I'm really happy for you.\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker A: Thanks. I'm really happy with my life right now.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one.\n-   Speaker B's initial response \"I'm doing well, thank you. How are you?\" is a direct and appropriate reply to Speaker A's greeting.\n-   Speaker B's interjection \"Sorry to cut in, but I was wondering if you had any plans for the weekend?\" at [00:08] is a topic shift, but it is explicitly acknowledged and apologized for (\"Sorry to cut in\"), making it logically consistent within the interaction. It transitions the conversation smoothly from general well-being to weekend plans.\n-   Speaker A's response at [00:12] directly answers the question about weekend plans and reciprocates.\n-   Speaker B's follow-up at [00:15] comments on Speaker A's plans and then shares similar intentions, maintaining topic coherence.\n-   The concluding remarks from both speakers about enjoying time and being happy are relevant to the established positive tone of the conversation.\nThe conversation maintains a clear and coherent flow, with responses being highly relevant and topics progressing logically.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with natural turn-taking and appropriate pacing.\n-   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. Most transitions are immediate or involve very brief, natural pauses (e.g., 1 second, which is acceptable).\n-   **Overlaps:**\n    -   At [00:08 - 00:11], Speaker B begins speaking at [00:08] while Speaker A is still speaking until [00:09]. This is a 1-second overlap. However, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to cut in,\" which actually enhances the naturalness and politeness of the interaction, rather than being a harmful disruption. It indicates a conscious interruption that is immediately mitigated.\n    -   At [00:15 - 00:19], Speaker B begins speaking at [00:15] while Speaker A is still speaking until [00:16]. This is another 1-second overlap. This type of brief overlap is very common in natural conversations and is generally not considered \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" as it doesn't impede understanding or flow. It contributes to a sense of dynamic and engaged conversation.\nOverall, the brief overlaps are not disruptive; one is explicitly handled in a polite manner, and the other is short enough to be a natural part of conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--32729",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I've been thinking a lot about the future lately.\n[00:03 - 00:03] Speaker B: What do you mean?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: Just, like, what I want to do with my life. It's kind of scary, thinking about all the\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker B: Sorry, but when you say \"scary,\" do you mean you're anxious about making the wrong choices or more about the uncertainty of it all?\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker A: It's more about the uncertainty. But I feel like I need to start planning for it anyway.\n[00:21 - 00:22] Speaker B: Why?\n[00:22 - 00:30] Speaker A: Because if I don't, nothing is going to happen the way I want it to. And then I'll just end up being disappointed and frustrated.\n[00:30 - 00:33] Speaker B: That makes sense. So what have you been thinking about?\n[00:34 - 00:37] Speaker A: Well, first of all, I really want to go to college.\n[00:38 - 00:41] Speaker B: Yeah, me too! But that's so expensive... and it's\n[00:40 - 00:52] Speaker A: Exactly, and that's why I've been saving up money from my part-time job. I've also been looking into scholarships and financial aid options. Hopefully, between all of that, I'll be able to make it work somehow.\n[00:53 - 00:55] Speaker B: That sounds like a good plan. And after college?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Both speakers maintain logical consistency and strong topic coherence throughout the conversation. Speaker A's statements about their future are consistently met with relevant questions and empathetic responses from Speaker B, which in turn prompt Speaker A to elaborate further. For example, Speaker B's clarifying question about \"scary\" at [00:08 - 00:15] helps Speaker A articulate their feelings more precisely. Later, Speaker B guides the conversation from general future worries to concrete plans (\"So what have you been thinking about?\" at [00:30 - 00:33]) and then follows up on the details (college cost at [00:38 - 00:41] and \"And after college?\" at [00:53 - 00:55]). Speaker A's responses are always direct answers to Speaker B's prompts and elaborate logically on the emerging topic. The conversation flows very naturally from general anxiety about the future to specific plans for college and beyond, without any irrelevant detours or illogical jumps.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are a couple of brief overlaps, but they are not extended or prolonged, and they contribute to the natural, engaged feel of the conversation rather than hindering it.\n- At [00:08 - 00:15], Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing a phrase. This is a very brief overlap (approximately 1 second). Speaker B's interjection is a clarifying question, which indicates active listening and eagerness to understand, a common feature of natural conversation.\n- At [00:40 - 00:52], Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing a word (\"it's\"). This is also a very brief overlap (approximately 1 second). Speaker A jumps in to agree and immediately provide a solution to the problem Speaker B is raising, demonstrating high engagement and anticipation.\nThese brief overlaps are acceptable and even enhance the sense of a lively, responsive discussion. There are no noticeable long pauses between turns, indicating a smooth and continuous flow of communication.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--136096",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm sorry if I offended you with what I said. It wasn't my intention to make you\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: What exactly did you say?\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: I made a comment about how black people are always late. I know it was wrong and I shouldn't have said something so\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker B: Why would you say something like that?\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker A: I don't know. It was a stupid thing to say. I'm sorry.\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: Nya, this is not acceptable. This isn't the first time you've made a comment like this and it needs to stop immediately.\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker A: I know. I'm sorry. I'll try to do better.\n[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker B: I hope so, because if you don't, you will face disciplinary action. Do you understand?\n[00:33 - 00:35] Speaker A: Yes, I understand.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B's questions (\"What exactly did you say?\", \"Why would you say something like that?\") are direct and logical follow-ups to Speaker A's initial apology and subsequent confession. Speaker A's responses are consistently on topic, providing the requested information and expressing regret. As the conversation progresses, Speaker B's shift to a more reprimanding tone (\"this is not acceptable,\" \"needs to stop immediately,\" \"face disciplinary action\") is a logical and coherent escalation given the gravity of the disclosed comment and its prior recurrence. Speaker A's acknowledgments and apologies maintain topic coherence, demonstrating understanding and a commitment to change (or at least, saying so). There are no instances of irrelevant responses or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is very good. There are several instances of brief, natural overlaps ([00:04-00:05], [00:12-00:13], [00:24-00:25]), which are characteristic of engaged, natural conversation and do not disrupt the flow or indicate prolonged turn-taking issues. These overlaps are short and typically occur when one speaker anticipates the end of the other's turn or interjects with a brief comment. The pauses between turns are also very brief (e.g., 1 second pauses before [00:19] and [00:28]), indicating a smooth back-and-forth without any extended or awkward silences. The pacing feels natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--55767",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Ashley! How's it going?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Not too bad. Just getting ready for finals. You?\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: Same here. I can't believe the semester is almost over already. It feels like it just started and now\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker B: Yesterday, right? It's crazy how fast time flies when you're swamped with work.\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker A: I know. Time really flies when you're having fun, huh?\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: Definitely. So, what are your plans for next semester? Are you going to stay on campus or go back home\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: Home? I'm not sure yet. I haven't really thought about it much. What about you? Are you staying on campus or going home?\n[00:32 - 00:41] Speaker B: I'm thinking about staying on campus and getting a job. I really don't want to go home and be bored all summer. Plus, I'd rather make some money so I can save up for next year's expenses.\n[00:41 - 00:44] Speaker A: That's a good idea. I might do the same thing.\n[00:45 - 00:49] Speaker B: Yeah, I think it would be a lot of fun. We could get an apartment together and everything!\n[00:49 - 00:52] Speaker A: That would be awesome! I'll definitely think about it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous speaker's statement. For example, Speaker B responds to Speaker A's \"How's it going?\" with an update on finals and reciprocates the question. Later, Speaker B completes Speaker A's thought about time flying, and both speakers engage in a coherent discussion about future plans (staying on campus, getting a job, getting an apartment together). The progression of topics is natural and fluid, showing strong topic coherence throughout the conversation. There are no instances of irrelevant responses, logical inconsistencies, or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is also excellent. The turn-taking is smooth, with no long pauses detected between speakers. There are two instances of brief overlaps ([00:11-00:15] where Speaker B slightly overlaps with Speaker A's last word, and [00:24-00:31] where Speaker A starts with \"Home?\" while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence). These are very short (around 1 second each where both speakers are active) and are typical of natural, engaged human conversation, indicating active listening and anticipation rather than disruptive interruption. They do not constitute \"extended overlaps\" and do not hinder the flow or understanding of the dialogue. The conversation feels natural and dynamic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--4583",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Mom, can I ask you something?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Of course, Faisal. What is it?\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker A: Do you believe in God?\n[00:06 - 00:14] Speaker B: I do. I think there's something out there that's greater than all of us and that we can't always understand why things happen the way they they do,\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but what do you mean by \"something greater\"? Are you talking about a specific religion or just a general belief?\n[00:22 - 00:31] Speaker B: It's more of a general belief for me, something that encompasses all religions in a way. But I think there's a reason for everything, even if we don't always understand it at first.\n[00:31 - 00:33] Speaker A: Even if bad things happen?\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker B: Yes, even if bad things happen. I think that ultimately, good will prevail. Why do you ask?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B consistently answers Speaker A's direct questions, and Speaker A's follow-up questions are direct clarifications or natural extensions of the topic. For example, Speaker A's \"Do you believe in God?\" is directly answered by Speaker B. Speaker A then seeks clarification on \"something greater,\" which Speaker B provides, maintaining topic coherence. Speaker A's final question \"Even if bad things happen?\" directly probes the limits of Speaker B's stated belief, and Speaker B's response addresses this directly. The conversation flows naturally, without digressions or illogical jumps.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is excellent. There is one brief overlap identified: Speaker A's turn starting at 0:13 overlaps with Speaker B's turn ending at 0:14. This overlap is only 1 second long. Crucially, Speaker A immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating awareness and minimizing any potential disruption. According to the criteria, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this 1-second, acknowledged overlap falls into that category. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses indicated by the timestamps or implied by the flow of the conversation. The turn-taking is smooth and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--203",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I am sorry, sir. I have broken the reading lamp in my room.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Well, sir. May I have your room number?\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: 503. I would like to request a\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but before we proceed, could you please confirm if there's any other damage in the room?\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker A: No, just the lamp. As I was saying, I would like to pay for it.\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker B: Certainly, but first, please fill out the form.\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker A: OK, can you bring me a new lamp after I finish the form?\n[00:26 - 00:27] Speaker B: Of course.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one, maintaining clear topic coherence throughout the conversation.\n\n*   Speaker B's request for a room number after Speaker A reports damage is a logical first step.\n*   Speaker B's interruption to ask about other damage is relevant to the reported issue and is a reasonable inquiry for property management. The \"Sorry to interrupt\" acknowledges the pragmatic need for the question before A continues their request.\n*   Speaker A's completion of their request (\"I would like to pay for it\") directly follows their response to B's question.\n*   Speaker B's instruction to fill out a form is a standard, logical procedure for dealing with property damage and payment.\n*   Speaker A's question about getting a new lamp is a natural follow-up to the broken one, showing the logical progression of the problem resolution.\n*   Speaker B's final \"Of course\" directly answers A's question.\n\nThere are no instances where responses are off-topic, confusing, or illogical given the context.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good, with no prolonged pauses or disruptive extended overlaps.\n\n*   The turn-taking is generally smooth, with appropriate timing between speakers.\n*   The only overlap occurs between `[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B` and `[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A`. Speaker B starts speaking at 0:08 while Speaker A is still speaking until 0:09. This is a 1-second overlap. However, Speaker B explicitly says \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness of the overlap and frames it as a necessary, brief interruption rather than an extended or accidental one. This type of brief, acknowledged overlap is acceptable and can even contribute to natural conversational flow by efficiently addressing immediate information needs.\n*   There are no long pauses that would hinder the flow or suggest disengagement. The conversation progresses naturally and efficiently.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--238",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Can you help me do an internet search?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Sure. What do you want to find?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: I want to find information on World War Two.\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Well, can you be more specific? There are a lot of websites about different aspects\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker A: Oh, I actually want to know about the Normandy Landing.\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: Ok. Well, go to www.google.com, and type in Normandy Landing.\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker A: Oh, wow! There are a lot of sites.\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B: Here, try this one. It's a good site about Normandy Landing.\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: Thanks. By the way, earlier you mentioned there were a lot of websites about something. What were you going to say?\n[00:33 - 00:40] Speaker B: Right, I was just saying there are a lot of websites about World War Two in general, but for detailed information, however, you should read a history book.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and logically consistent. Speaker B's initial clarifying question (\"What do you want to find?\") is appropriate. Speaker B then prompts Speaker A for more specificity, which Speaker A provides (\"Normandy Landing\"). Speaker B then gives clear instructions. Speaker A's follow-up question (\"What were you going to say?\") regarding Speaker B's earlier unfinished sentence at [00:07 - 00:11] demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence, showing that Speaker A was paying attention and wanted clarification on a previous point, effectively tying the conversation together. Speaker B's explanation then perfectly addresses this, providing full context and even additional advice. The conversation progresses logically and all turns build upon the previous ones in a meaningful way.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the pauses observed are brief (1 second or less), which is natural in conversation and does not disrupt the flow. There is one brief overlap between Speaker B's turn at [00:07 - 00:11] and Speaker A's turn at [00:10 - 00:13]. This overlap is approximately 1 second long. However, this is a brief overlap where Speaker A seems to anticipate or respond immediately to Speaker B's implicit request for specificity, which is common in natural, fluid conversation and not disruptive. It indicates active listening and smooth turn-taking rather than a breakdown in communication. Overall, the conversation flows very smoothly.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--19505",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:09] Speaker A: Thank you so much for hiring me as your child's tutor. I know it's been a tough few months for everyone and I'm just glad I can help out in any way to get\n[00:08 - 00:16] Speaker B: Of course, thank you. We really appreciate it. Our child has been struggling lately and we're just hoping that with some extra help they'll be able to get back on track.\n[00:16 - 00:25] Speaker A: Absolutely, I'll do everything I can to help them improve. Do you have any specific goals or areas of focus that you would like me to concentrate on,\n[00:25 - 00:33] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but I think it's important to mention that math has always been their weakest area. If you could help them improve their math skills, that would be great.\n[00:33 - 00:41] Speaker A: Okay, I'll definitely focus on helping them with their math then. Do you have any other concerns or anything else you'd like me to know?\n[00:42 - 00:45] Speaker B: No, that's all for now. Thank you again for your help.\n[00:46 - 00:48] Speaker A: You're welcome. I'll see you next week.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous speaker's statement, maintaining clear topic coherence throughout the conversation.\n\n*   Speaker B's initial response directly thanks Speaker A for their help and explains the context (child struggling), which is a logical follow-up to Speaker A's introductory remark.\n*   Speaker A's subsequent question about \"specific goals or areas of focus\" is a highly relevant open-ended question designed to elicit necessary information for their role.\n*   Speaker B's \"Sorry to jump in\" immediately after Speaker A's question, followed by identifying math as a weak area, is perfectly relevant to Speaker A's query about areas of focus, even if it's an interruption in manner rather than content. It directly answers the implicit need for information.\n*   Speaker A's confirmation to focus on math and asking for \"any other concerns\" shows active listening and a desire to gather all necessary information, maintaining the logical flow.\n*   Speaker B's final \"No, that's all for now\" and thanks appropriately concludes the information-gathering segment.\nThe conversation moves logically from an introduction to setting initial expectations for the tutoring role.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good. There are no prolonged pauses or extended overlaps that would disrupt the natural flow of conversation.\n\n*   At [00:08 - 00:16], there is a brief overlap of 1 second (00:08-00:09) where Speaker B starts their turn while Speaker A is finishing. This is a common and natural occurrence in conversational speech and falls within the \"brief overlaps\" considered acceptable.\n*   The phrase \"Sorry to jump in\" by Speaker B at [00:25] indicates an interruption in conversational turn-taking, but the timestamps show Speaker B starting exactly when Speaker A finishes (00:25). This suggests Speaker B might have felt they were interjecting quickly or getting straight to the point, rather than a literal timestamped overlap. Even if it were a very brief overlap, it's consistent with natural conversation.\n*   There are short pauses (1 second) between turns at [00:41 - 00:42] and [00:45 - 00:46]. These are brief and allow for natural processing time, contributing to, rather than detracting from, fluency.\n\nOverall, the pacing feels natural and conversational, with no significant fluency issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--377",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Do you think our headmaster is going to build a new lab building?\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: I've no idea. He may have the plan. But he hasn't spoken to us teachers about what the\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but do you think it possible that it will happen?\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker B: Of course. Right now, our old lab building can't satisfy the increasing need of teaching. It's too small and not in proper condition.\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker A: Why don't we build a new one as soon as possible?\n[00:21 - 00:23] Speaker B: There may be some problems related to\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker A: What kind of problems?\n[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker B: As far as I know, money is. It's not likely to be solved soon, I guess.\n[00:29 - 00:33] Speaker A: I believe our headmaster will ask the local government to help us build a new one.\n[00:34 - 00:45] Speaker B: I think so. It's quite likely that the decision will be made before the end of this term. By the way, you mentioned earlier that the headmaster hadn't spoken to the teachers yet—do you think he'll involve them in the planning process?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one, maintaining a clear topic coherence regarding the potential new lab building.\n- Speaker A initiates the topic, and Speaker B responds by stating their lack of knowledge but acknowledging the possibility.\n- Speaker A's interruptions are not random but serve to rephrase the question or ask for clarification, directly advancing the conversation about the lab.\n- Speaker B provides logical reasons (old lab condition, money problems) for why a new lab is needed or faces challenges.\n- Speaker A's belief about the headmaster seeking government help logically follows the discussion of money problems.\n- Speaker B's final response not only agrees and provides a potential timeline but also skillfully circles back to an earlier point they made (\"hadn't spoken to the teachers yet\") to ask a relevant follow-up question, demonstrating excellent conversational recall and topic management.\nThere are no irrelevant turns or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good, reflecting natural conversation.\n- There are two brief overlaps:\n    - [00:07 - 00:08]: Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. This is a short, 1-second overlap, and Speaker A apologizes, indicating it's a conscious, brief interruption rather than a prolonged, disruptive one. This is common in natural speech.\n    - [00:22 - 00:23]: Speaker A again interrupts Speaker B with a question. This is another brief, 1-second overlap. This type of overlap, driven by eagerness for clarification, is also natural and does not constitute an extended or harmful overlap.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The longest visible gap is 1 second between [00:33] and [00:34], which is a minor, acceptable pause.\nThe pacing feels natural, and the brief overlaps contribute to the dynamic feel of the conversation rather than hindering it.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--106755",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Rachel. What's going on?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Not much, what about you?\n[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker A: I'm just hanging out, waiting for my friends to get here. Hey, do you want to grab a cup of coffee or something? I could really use some time to\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but are you okay? You sound like you really need someone to talk to right now.\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker A: Yeah, I do. It's been really tough lately. My mom is sick and I've been having a lot of trouble at work.\n[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker B: I'm so sorry, Rachel. That sounds really tough. Do you want to talk about how you're\n[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker A: Yeah, I think I need to talk to someone about it. It's just been so hard to keep everything together lately.\n[00:34 - 00:38] Speaker B: I completely understand. Let's go get that coffee and we can talk about it more.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n\n*   **Initial Exchange:** The opening \"Hey, what's going on?\" and \"Not much, what about you?\" are standard and perfectly relevant conversational starters.\n*   **Topic Introduction:** Speaker A's turn introduces the idea of getting coffee and subtly hints at needing to talk (\"I could really use some time to...\").\n*   **Empathetic Intervention:** Speaker B's \"Sorry to jump in, but are you okay? You sound like you really need someone to talk to right now\" is a highly relevant and empathetic response. It directly addresses the implied emotional state and unfinished thought of Speaker A, showing active listening and concern.\n*   **Disclosure and Support:** Speaker A's subsequent disclosure about their mom and work troubles is a direct and logical follow-up to Speaker B's empathetic question. Speaker B's response \"I'm so sorry, Rachel. That sounds really tough. Do you want to talk about how you're...\" continues the empathetic thread, inviting further elaboration.\n*   **Affirmation and Resolution:** Speaker A confirms the need to talk, and Speaker B closes the interaction by reiterating the offer for coffee and a deeper conversation.\n\nThroughout the dialogue, the topic naturally evolves from a casual greeting to an expression of concern, leading to a vulnerable disclosure and empathetic support. There are no irrelevant turns, and each speaker's contribution builds meaningfully on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good, with minimal issues.\n\n*   **Brief Overlap:** There is one instance of an overlap from [00:11 - 00:12], where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing a sentence. This overlap lasts only 1 second. Crucially, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which indicates self-awareness and maintains conversational politeness. This is not a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap; rather, it's a natural, empathetic interjection that adds to the realism of the conversation, especially when one speaker is picking up on an emotional cue from the other.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long or disruptive pauses. The longest gap between turns is 1 second (e.g., between [00:23] and [00:24]), which is a very brief and natural conversational pause, not indicative of a breakdown in fluency.\n*   **Turn-taking:** Turn-taking is generally smooth and responsive, with speakers picking up on cues and responding promptly.\n\nThe dialogue feels natural and well-paced, reflecting a comfortable and attentive interaction between the speakers.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--689",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I heard that studio monitors are really good. What are they?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Studio monitors are speakers used in recording studios. They're used to create a flat\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but do you mean they help in producing music with better quality?\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: Yes, exactly! They provide a more accurate sound. By the way, have you ever been in a recording studio?\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker A: I haven't! I know it sounds like it would be an amazing\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker B: It really is! The atmosphere is just incredible. Do you think you'd ever want to visit one?\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker A: Absolutely! It would be fascinating to see how music is produced.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's initial question about studio monitors is directly addressed by Speaker B. Speaker A's interruption at [00:08] is a clarifying question, which demonstrates active listening and a desire for deeper understanding, making it highly relevant to the ongoing discussion about the function of studio monitors. Speaker B's confirmation and elaboration at [00:13] maintain this relevance. The transition initiated by Speaker B (\"By the way, have you ever been in a recording studio?\") at [00:17] is a natural and coherent topic shift, moving from the specific tool (monitors) to the broader context of its use (recording studio). Both speakers engage with this new topic appropriately. All subsequent turns are logically consistent with the preceding statements and maintain topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent fluency. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; turns are taken promptly, indicating smooth conversational flow. For instance, the pause between Speaker A's first question and Speaker B's answer is only 1 second (00:03-00:04), which is negligible. Similarly, turns like [00:13]-[00:19] and [00:19]-[00:23] show immediate responses. There are two instances of brief overlap:\n1. At [00:08], Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. Speaker A explicitly apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating awareness and politeness. This is a common and natural conversational strategy for clarification and does not disrupt the flow; instead, it enhances engagement.\n2. At [00:22], Speaker B briefly overlaps with Speaker A. This overlap occurs as Speaker B enthusiastically agrees with Speaker A's implied positive sentiment about a recording studio. This type of brief, enthusiastic overlap is natural in informal conversation and contributes to the dynamic and engaged feel of the interaction rather than being disruptive.\nNeither of these overlaps is extended or harmful; they contribute to the naturalness of the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--15471",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I can't believe I'm actually going to Ireland!\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: I know, it's amazing that you were able to save up enough money for a plane ticket. It\n[00:06 - 00:16] Speaker A: Oh, it was so tough! I had to cut back on so many things, but it was worth it. I've always wanted to go to Ireland and now I'm actually going to be able to do it.\n[00:17 - 00:18] Speaker B: What are you most excited about?\n[00:19 - 00:33] Speaker A: I think just being able to experience the culture and the history of the country. Ireland has such a rich culture and there is so much to learn about it. Plus, the landscape is supposed to be absolutely breathtaking, with\n[00:32 - 00:39] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but have you decided on any specific places you want to visit first? Like, is there a must-see spot on your list?\n[00:40 - 00:53] Speaker A: Oh, definitely! I really want to visit the Cliffs of Moher first. But I was going to say the landscape is supposed to be absolutely beautiful, so I can't wait to see it all. And yes, the Cliffs are at the top of my list!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows from the previous one, maintaining a clear and consistent topic about Speaker A's trip to Ireland.\n- Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's excitement about going to Ireland, acknowledging the effort involved in saving money.\n- Speaker A then elaborates on the difficulty of saving, reinforcing the worthiness of the trip.\n- Speaker B's question \"What are you most excited about?\" is a natural and relevant follow-up.\n- Speaker A's answer details cultural, historical, and landscape aspects, directly addressing the question.\n- Speaker B's interjection, while an interruption, is explicitly acknowledged (\"Sorry to cut in\") and introduces a highly relevant follow-up question about specific places to visit, stemming from Speaker A's mention of the landscape.\n- Speaker A handles this interruption skillfully by first answering the new question about specific places (Cliffs of Moher) and then circling back to complete their original thought about the landscape being beautiful. This demonstrates excellent topic coherence and logical consistency, as Speaker A ensures all points are addressed.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are no extended overlaps. The overlap at [00:32 - 00:33] where Speaker B says \"Sorry to cut in\" while Speaker A is still finishing a word (\"with\") is brief and immediately acknowledged by Speaker B. This is a natural conversational occurrence rather than a breakdown in fluency. The dialogue explicitly accounts for it.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses observed are typically 1 second or less, which are natural and acceptable in conversational flow, allowing for processing and turn-taking without feeling awkward or disruptive.\n- Turn-taking generally feels smooth and immediate, contributing to a natural conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--40",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Come in, come in! Can I help you?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Professor Turner, are you giving your Advanced Geology course again next semester?\n[00:07 - 00:07] Speaker A: Yes.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: I wonder if I could enroll in it, I know it's a graduate course and I'm only a junior, but...\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: Aren't you a bit young? I've allowed qualified seniors to take the course and they usually have a hard time to keep up\n[00:18 - 00:33] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I think I should mention that I've been really passionate about geology for a long time. The geology of the American West is my favorite interest and I've read a lot in the field. Last semester I took Professor Burman's course and I didn't find it challenging enough.\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker A: I see. You certainly aren't one of those students who are out for easy grades.\n[00:39 - 00:41] Speaker B: I should say not. I really want to learn something.\n[00:42 - 00:54] Speaker A: Well, I'll speak to Professor Burman, if he thinks you're ready, I'll let you enroll. Oh, I was going to mention earlier—seniors often struggle to keep up with the pace of the course. How do you feel about managing the workload?\n[00:55 - 01:02] Speaker B: I understand it might be challenging, but I'm confident I can handle it. Oh, and thank you, Professor Turner, that's very nice of you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one, maintaining a clear topic coherence regarding Speaker B's request to enroll in Professor Turner's Advanced Geology course.\n\n*   Speaker B's initial question is directly answered by Speaker A.\n*   Speaker B then states their desire to enroll, preempting potential objections due to their junior status, which Speaker A immediately picks up on (\"Aren't you a bit young?\").\n*   Speaker B's \"Sorry to interrupt\" turn is a direct and relevant justification to address Speaker A's implicit doubt about their qualification, providing specific reasons (passion, extensive reading, previous course not challenging enough).\n*   Speaker A's \"I see. You certainly aren't one of those students who are out for easy grades\" logically follows Speaker B's detailed justification, showing understanding and a positive shift in perception.\n*   Speaker B's \"I should say not. I really want to learn something\" reinforces this.\n*   Speaker A's final proposal (\"Well, I'll speak to Professor Burman, if he thinks you're ready, I'll let you enroll\") is a logical progression towards a resolution, while also reintroducing a relevant concern about workload management based on previous experience.\n*   Speaker B's final response (\"I'm confident I can handle it. Oh, and thank you...\") directly addresses the workload concern and expresses gratitude for the offer.\n\nThere are no illogical jumps, irrelevant statements, or inconsistencies. The conversation flows very naturally and purposefully towards its objective.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap identified at [00:18 - 00:19]. Speaker B begins speaking at [00:18] while Speaker A is still speaking, but Speaker B immediately acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt.\" This one-second overlap, especially with the explicit apology, is a natural feature of dynamic conversation where one speaker is eager to interject a point. It does not disrupt the flow negatively or indicate a breakdown in turn-taking; rather, it highlights Speaker B's passion and eagerness. It is not a prolonged or harmful overlap.\n*   **Pauses:** All pauses between speaker turns are very brief (typically 1 second or less), which is entirely natural and indicates a smooth, responsive conversation. There are no long, awkward silences that would hinder the interactional flow.\n\nThe pacing of the dialogue is very natural and conversational, reflecting a clear understanding and responsiveness between the speakers.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--47046",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm so happy to have my own place, but I sometimes feel a bit\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but have you thought about getting a pet? It might help with the loneliness.\n[00:07 - 00:16] Speaker A: That's a good idea! I think I'm going to try to make more of an effort to talk to my neighbors too. And maybe I'll look into getting a cat.\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B: That sounds like a great plan! Let me know how it goes.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Speaker A begins to express a common sentiment of initial excitement about a new place combined with a subtle hint of loneliness or isolation. Speaker B's interruption, while cutting Speaker A off, is immediately relevant, suggesting a solution (getting a pet) directly addressing the implied issue of loneliness. Speaker B even explicitly states \"It might help with the loneliness,\" showing they correctly interpreted Speaker A's implied state. Speaker A then affirms Speaker B's suggestion (\"That's a good idea!\") and elaborates on potential solutions, including considering a cat, which ties directly back to Speaker B's suggestion, and also adds another logical solution (talking to neighbors). Speaker B's final response is supportive and directly acknowledges Speaker A's plan. The logical consistency and topic coherence are well-maintained throughout the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good interactional fluency. There is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from 00:03 to 00:04. However, Speaker B immediately acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which mitigates the negative impact of the overlap and demonstrates conversational awareness. This brief, acknowledged overlap falls within the \"acceptable\" category as per the instructions (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\"). There are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected between speaker turns, allowing for a natural and smooth flow of conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--100193",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey boss, how's it going?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: It's going well, Carmen. How are you managing\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, I just wanted to ask if you had a chance to review the report I sent this morning?\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker B: Oh, I haven't gotten to that yet, but I will soon. You mentioned you're focused on getting through your workday—anything specific you're working on?\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker A: Just some client follow-ups and a few pending tasks. I'll reach out if I need any help with anything.\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: Sounds good, Carmen. Let me know if you need any assistance.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance.\n- Speaker A's initial \"Hey boss, how's it going?\" is a standard greeting.\n- Speaker B's \"It's going well, Carmen. How are you managing\" is a direct and appropriate response, followed by an attempt to inquire about Speaker A's status, showing engagement.\n- Speaker A's immediate shift to the report (\"Sorry to cut in, I just wanted to ask if you had a chance to review the report...\") is logically consistent with an employee needing a quick answer from their manager. The \"Sorry to cut in\" acknowledges the abruptness, making it natural.\n- Speaker B directly answers the report question (\"Oh, I haven't gotten to that yet, but I will soon\") and then pivots to a relevant inquiry about Speaker A's current workload (\"You mentioned you're focused on getting through your workday—anything specific you're working on?\"). This shows attentiveness and concern for the employee.\n- Speaker A's response (\"Just some client follow-ups and a few pending tasks. I'll reach out if I need any help with anything.\") is a clear and concise answer to B's inquiry and a proactive statement regarding future needs.\n- Speaker B's closing (\"Sounds good, Carmen. Let me know if you need any assistance.\") is a supportive and relevant closing, reinforcing the offer of help.\nOverall, the topic coherence is maintained throughout, focusing on work, reports, and mutual support, and each turn logically follows the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There is one brief overlap at [00:03 - 00:04] where Speaker A begins while Speaker B is still speaking. However, Speaker A immediately acknowledges this by saying \"Sorry to cut in,\" which makes the overlap understandable and not disruptive. This falls under a \"brief overlap\" rather than a \"prolonged\" or harmful one.\n- Pauses between turns are minimal.\n    - [00:01 - 00:02]: 1-second pause. (Small, acceptable)\n    - [00:04 - 00:09]: Overlap from A's side, B finishes. No pause between B's end and A's start on the *new* turn. (0-second pause)\n    - [00:09 - 00:09]: 0-second pause between Speaker A's end and Speaker B's start.\n    - [00:17 - 00:17]: 0-second pause between Speaker B's end and Speaker A's start.\n    - [00:23 - 00:24]: 1-second pause between Speaker A's end and Speaker B's start. (Small, acceptable)\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses. The conversation flows naturally and efficiently.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--403",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I love visiting islands. Do you have any trips coming up?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: I do! I'm planning to go hiking next month in Sequoia National Park, and\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I just got so excited! Have you been to Sequoia before? I've heard it's amazing.\n[00:15 - 00:26] Speaker B: No, this will be my first time. I was actually going to mention that I'm also looking forward to seeing the giant sequoia trees. But coming back to islands, have you visited any interesting ones recently?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Speaker B's initial response to Speaker A's question about trips, though not about an island, is perfectly relevant as \"trips\" encompass more than just islands. Speaker A's subsequent interruption and excitement about Sequoia National Park directly follow from Speaker B's mention of it, showing logical consistency. Speaker B then answers Speaker A's question about Sequoia and smoothly transitions back to the original topic of islands by explicitly stating \"But coming back to islands...\". This demonstrates excellent topic coherence and a conscious effort to revisit the initial thread, preventing the conversation from completely derailing. All turns build on previous statements or thoughtfully re-engage with earlier topics.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction shows good fluency. There is one brief overlap between Speaker B ([00:04 - 00:09]) and Speaker A ([00:08 - 00:15]). The overlap occurs for only 1 second (from 00:08 to 00:09). Critically, Speaker A immediately acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt...\"), which indicates awareness and keeps it from being a prolonged or disruptive overlap. There are no long pauses between turns. The flow feels natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--444",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Did you ever make cakes or brownies before?\n[00:02 - 00:08] Speaker B: Yeah! I made a cake and some brownies in high school. They were pretty easy, but they tasted great.\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker A: That's awesome. Are you baking anything right now?\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B: I don't think so! I did make some homemade ice cream for the first time, though. It was pretty fun to\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker A: Ice cream? That sounds amazing! What flavor did you make?\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B: I made Oreo and marshmallow flavor. It's really easy. You just need to buy the ingredients, put them in the freezer, and then you let the machine do its thing.\n[00:29 - 00:32] Speaker A: That doesn't sound too complicated! What did you enjoy the\n[00:31 - 00:38] Speaker B: Sorry to cut you off, but I just got really curious—did you use a specific recipe or just experiment with the ingredients?\n[00:38 - 00:47] Speaker A: I actually followed a recipe I found online. It was straightforward. I was going to ask, what ingredients did you use for your cake and brownies?\n[00:48 - 00:57] Speaker B: Oh, for the cake, I used a simple vanilla recipe, and for the brownies, I used dark chocolate and walnuts. What about you? Did you enjoy making the ice cream?\n[00:57 - 01:03] Speaker A: Absolutely, it was so much fun! I think it would be a great way to spend time together.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe conversation exhibits excellent **Response Relevance**. Each turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining strong coherence.\n- Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's initial questions about baking and current activities.\n- The shift from baking to ice cream is a natural and related topic transition, indicating good conversational flow.\n- Speaker A's follow-up questions (e.g., \"What flavor did you make?\") are directly relevant to Speaker B's preceding statement.\n- When Speaker B interrupts Speaker A (\"Sorry to cut you off\"), they immediately pose a question logically tied to the current topic (ice cream recipe). This shows awareness and maintains relevance.\n- Critically, Speaker A skillfully brings back their original, interrupted question about cake and brownie ingredients, demonstrating excellent topic management and memory.\n- Speaker B then answers this resurrected question and subsequently brings the conversation back to the ice cream topic with another relevant question.\nAll responses are on-topic, provide necessary information, and contribute meaningfully to the dialogue's progression.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong **Interactional Fluency**, with only minor, well-managed deviations.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns, ensuring a dynamic conversation pace.\n- One brief overlap occurs at [00:16 - 00:20] where Speaker A begins their turn just as Speaker B is finishing. This is a very short overlap (1 second) and appears to be an enthusiastic uptake rather than a disruptive interruption, falling within the acceptable range of \"brief overlaps.\"\n- A more significant, yet still brief, overlap happens at [00:31 - 00:38]. Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still talking, explicitly stating \"Sorry to cut you off.\" This is an acknowledged interruption. Although the overlap duration itself is short (1 second), the act of cutting off Speaker A's turn could be considered disruptive. However, Speaker B's immediate apology acts as an effective interactional repair mechanism, demonstrating awareness and mitigating the impact. The conversation recovers seamlessly, with Speaker A successfully re-introducing their point later. This single, acknowledged, and brief interruption does not significantly hinder the overall fluency of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--41",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hello, I bought the pendant in your shop, just before.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Yes. Thank you very much.\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Now I come back to the hotel and try to show it to my friend, the pendant is broken, I'm afraid.\n[00:12 - 00:13] Speaker B: Oh, is it?\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: Would you change it to a new one? I\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but could you tell me how it broke? Was it during normal wear, or did something happen to it?\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker A: It broke when I was just about to show it to my friend, so I think it might have been defective. But, would you change it to a new one?\n[00:29 - 00:31] Speaker B: Yes, certainly. You have the receipt?\n[00:32 - 00:33] Speaker A: Yes, I do.\n[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker B: Then would you kindly come to our shop with the receipt by 10 o'clock? We will replace it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or logically follows the previous statement, ensuring strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n*   Speaker A clearly states the problem (broken pendant) and their request (change it).\n*   Speaker B's initial responses are acknowledging and polite. Their question at [00:15 - 00:21] (\"could you tell me how it broke?\") is a perfectly reasonable and common customer service step to understand the situation before proceeding with a solution. This is not a deflection but a necessary clarification.\n*   Speaker A provides the requested information and reiterates the core request.\n*   Speaker B then moves directly to offering a solution and outlining the necessary steps (receipt, coming to the shop).\nThe conversation flows naturally from problem identification to resolution, with all responses being highly relevant to the evolving situation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There is one instance of an overlap at [00:15 - 00:21], where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and politeness. This overlap is brief (B starts 1 second before A finishes) and is handled in a way that maintains conversational flow rather than disrupting it. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps... are acceptable.\"\n*   **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses that do occur ([00:11 - 00:12], [00:28 - 00:29], [00:31 - 00:32]) are all approximately 1 second, which are natural and brief, allowing for processing and turn-taking without feeling awkward or disruptive.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking feel natural and efficient, contributing positively to the interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--82",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Excuse me, could you tell me how to get to the school clinic? I've lost my way around\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but are you in a hurry? I can walk you there if you'd like.\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: I appreciate the offer, but I think I'll manage if you just give me the directions.\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: Sure, go straight ahead till you come to the traffic lights, turn left there and it's the first turning on the right.\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker A: Straight ahead to the traffic lights, left and then follow the\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B: And then right, yes. It'll take you about five minutes.\n[00:26 - 00:28] Speaker A: Got it, thank you!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Speaker A's initial request for directions is met by Speaker B's relevant offer of help. Speaker A then politely declines and reiterates their original request, which Speaker B promptly fulfills with clear directions. Speaker A's subsequent attempt to confirm the directions is appropriately completed and clarified by Speaker B, including an estimated time, which is helpful and relevant. Finally, Speaker A's acknowledgment and thanks are a fitting conclusion. The conversation maintains logical consistency and topic coherence throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  **[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B interrupting [00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A:** This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly states \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which frames the overlap as a conscious, polite interjection, not a disruptive one. This brief overlap is natural and acceptable.\n2.  **[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B overlapping [00:20 - 00:24] Speaker A:** This is also a 1-second overlap where Speaker B completes Speaker A's sentence. This type of collaborative completion is a very common and natural feature of fluent, cooperative conversation, showing engagement and understanding. It is brief and not prolonged.\nThere are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are smooth and natural, contributing to a fluid conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--2927",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm so glad you're here, Chandler. I feel really lucky to have you in my life.\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: Aww, thank you, Kally. I feel the same way about you. You're an amazing person and I'm so grateful to be able to\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but do you ever worry that maybe we're just saying that because we want to believe it?\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker B: I understand why you might feel that way, but I genuinely believe it. I think our relationship is better than it's ever been.\n[00:25 - 00:26] Speaker A: Yeah, me too.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one.\n*   Speaker B's initial response (00:05 - 00:11) perfectly reciprocates Speaker A's sentiment of gratitude.\n*   Speaker A's interjection (00:10 - 00:17), while cutting in, is a direct, albeit sudden, shift in perspective that questions the sincerity of their shared feelings. This is a natural conversational flow, where one person might have an immediate thought or doubt that needs to be voiced.\n*   Speaker B's subsequent response (00:18 - 00:24) directly addresses Speaker A's doubt, providing reassurance and reaffirming their genuine belief.\n*   Speaker A's final remark (00:25 - 00:26) indicates agreement and resolution of the momentarily raised doubt.\nThe topic coherence is maintained throughout, focusing on their relationship and mutual feelings, and the progression from initial appreciation to a moment of doubt and back to reaffirmation is logical and well-structured.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n*   **Pauses:** The pauses between turns are consistently 1 second (e.g., 00:04 to 00:05, 00:17 to 00:18, 00:24 to 00:25). These are brief and fall within the acceptable range for natural conversation, not being prolonged or disruptive.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one overlap detected between 00:10 and 00:11. Speaker A explicitly says, \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating awareness and acknowledging the overlap. This overlap is only 1 second long and is brief. Rather than being harmful, this specific overlap, coupled with Speaker A's apology, enhances the naturalness and realism of the interaction, simulating a spontaneous conversational moment where one speaker feels compelled to interject. It does not appear to hinder the flow or understanding.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--103907",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Wow, that was amazing! I've never felt that way before.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Me neither. It was like we were meant to find each\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: Meant to be together, right? I was just thinking the same thing.\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: I know, it's crazy. I can't believe this is happening.\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: Neither can I. But I'm so glad it is. You're the most beautiful girl I've ever seen, and\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I just have to say, you're making me feel like the luckiest person alive right now.\n[00:25 - 00:27] Speaker A: Oh, stop it. You're making me blush.\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker B: I mean it. You're absolutely stunning. I can't believe you're here with me right now.\n[00:32 - 00:39] Speaker A: I feel the same way about you. I can't believe this is real life. It feels like a dream come true.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the shared emotional experience and mutual admiration.\n- Speaker A expresses a profound feeling, and Speaker B immediately reciprocates (\"Me neither\").\n- Speaker A then completes Speaker B's thought, showing deep understanding and connection (\"Meant to be together, right? I was just thinking the same thing.\").\n- The conversation naturally progresses from shared feelings to compliments and mutual reassurance of disbelief/joy.\n- Speaker B's interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt, but I just have to say...\") is a relevant and emotionally charged response to Speaker A's compliment, immediately followed by Speaker A's playful and relevant reaction (\"Oh, stop it. You're making me blush.\").\n- The final turns reinforce the central theme of intense mutual feelings and disbelief at their reality.\nThe topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on the strong emotional bond and attraction between the speakers. There are no sudden topic shifts or irrelevant remarks.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- **Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap between [00:05 - 00:06] where Speaker A finishes Speaker B's sentence. This is a classic example of a \"collaborative overlap\" or \"cooperative completion,\" which is a sign of high fluency and natural conversation, indicating deep connection between speakers. The interruption at [00:19] by Speaker B (\"Sorry to interrupt...\") is explicitly acknowledged and is a natural, albeit brief, overlap/interruption in an emotionally charged moment. Neither of these are \"extended overlaps\" that disrupt understanding.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long or unnatural pauses. The pauses are minimal (e.g., 1 second between [00:06] and [00:05], or before [00:25] and [00:28]), which are completely acceptable and natural in human conversation, allowing for processing and turn-taking without breaking the flow.\nThe pacing is dynamic and conversational, indicative of natural, engaged speakers.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--31697",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Hi, Mary. I saw some dark clouds on my way home from work and knew a storm was coming, so I hurried inside to\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: Oh, did you happen to notice if the gutters were clear? I was planning to check them before the storm hits.\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker A: I didn't get a chance to check the gutters, but I can do that now. I hurried inside to make sure everything was secure.\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker B: Hello, Kyle. Yes, it looks like we're in for a big storm. I've already brought everything inside that could blow away, like\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: Should we also check the windows to make sure they're all locked? The wind might be stronger than usual.\n[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker B: Good thinking. I'll go help you finish up.\n[00:35 - 00:36] Speaker A: Thank you, dear.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong **Response Relevance**.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B's initial question about gutters directly responds to Speaker A's mention of a storm. Speaker A's response directly addresses the gutter question and reiterates their focus on securing things. Speaker B then shares their own storm prep, and Speaker A logically extends this to checking windows. Speaker B's agreement and offer to help are also perfectly consistent with the ongoing discussion about collaborative storm preparation.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The conversation maintains a consistent focus on the approaching storm and necessary household preparations. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant statements. The flow is natural and progresses towards a shared goal (securing the house).\nThe only minor point to note is Speaker B addressing Speaker A as \"Kyle\" at [00:20] after Speaker A addressed Speaker B as \"Mary\" at [00:00]. While this is an inconsistency in character naming, it does not affect the *relevance of the content* of the response itself to the ongoing topic. The content (preparing for the storm) remains highly relevant.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent **Interactional Fluency**.\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There are several instances of very brief overlaps (e.g., [00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B starting at 0:07 while Speaker A finishes at 0:08; [00:20 - 00:26] Speaker B starting at 0:20 while Speaker A finishes at 0:20; [00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A starting at 0:26 while Speaker B finishes at 0:26; [00:32 - 00:34] Speaker B starting at 0:32 while Speaker A finishes at 0:32). These overlaps are typically 1 second or less and are characteristic of natural, engaged conversation, where speakers anticipate turns or respond quickly. They are *brief* and not *prolonged* or disruptive.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses (e.g., 1 second between [00:12] and [00:13], 1 second between [00:34] and [00:35]) are small and natural, allowing for processing and turn-taking without feeling unnatural or indicative of a breakdown in communication.\nOverall, the timing and turn-taking contribute to a highly fluent and natural-sounding interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--402",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hello, Madam. What can we do for you today?\n[00:03 - 00:11] Speaker B: Hi. I've been sent over from Turner Interiors. They said I need to collect some sort of L / C? Do you have the necessary\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, you mentioned Turner Interiors—are you working on the Sayuri Beds project with them?\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B: Yes, that's correct. Do you have the L / C?\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A: I certainly do. Here it is, an Export L / C from Tokyo.\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: It should be from Sayuri Beds. Is that right?\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker A: Yes, it is. Sayuri Beds, Tokyo, Japan.\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker B: That's what I want! Do you need me to sign anything? Or fill in some forms?\n[00:36 - 00:39] Speaker A: Just sign right here, please. That's everything you need to do.\n[00:40 - 00:41] Speaker B: Perfect. Thank you, goodbye!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B initiates the conversation with a clear purpose (collecting an L/C). Speaker A's first intervention, though an overlap, is crucial for relevance, immediately narrowing down the context by mentioning \"Turner Interiors\" and \"Sayuri Beds project,\" which proves to be the correct line of inquiry. This proactive clarification prevents potential misunderstanding and ensures the subsequent conversation is directly on topic. Both speakers' turns build upon the previous one, clarifying details about the L/C's origin and necessary actions. There are no instances of misunderstandings, off-topic remarks, or illogical statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is one instance of an overlap where Speaker A jumps in at `[00:10 - 00:16]` while Speaker B is still speaking `[00:03 - 00:11]`. This overlap is brief (approximately 1 second) and is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker A (\"Sorry to jump in\"), indicating politeness and awareness. This type of brief, functional overlap, especially for clarification, is common in natural conversation and does not hinder communication; rather, it often improves efficiency. There are no prolonged pauses between turns that would disrupt the flow. The timing between turns is natural and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--81887",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:09] Speaker A: I don't know what your deal is, Miquel, but I'm getting really sick of you following me around everywhere I go. It's like you're stalking me or trying to\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B: Everest, hold on a second. I think you're misunderstanding my intentions. I'm not stalking you.\n[00:14 - 00:24] Speaker A: Miquel, it's not about misunderstanding. When you follow me around constantly and bug me nonstop, it just comes across as creepy and annoying. I don't appreciate it.\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker B: Fine, if that's how you feel about it, I'll back off. But I just want you to know that I really like you and was only trying to spend more\n[00:30 - 00:42] Speaker A: Miquel, I understand that, but liking someone doesn't mean you should invade their space. I think it would be best if we just stay friends. I don't think there's anything more between us.\n[00:42 - 00:49] Speaker B: Alright, Everest. If that's what you want, I'll respect your wishes. But know that I really do like you and will always be here for you as a friend.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the ongoing conversation about Miquel's behavior, Everest's discomfort, Miquel's intentions, and ultimately, the establishment of boundaries.\n- Speaker B's denial and explanation directly address Speaker A's accusation.\n- Speaker A's follow-up reinforces their stance, acknowledging but refuting Speaker B's explanation.\n- Speaker B's concession and disclosure of feelings are a direct consequence of Speaker A's strong message.\n- Speaker A's final turn directly addresses Speaker B's feelings while clearly setting a boundary, ensuring logical consistency.\n- Speaker B's acceptance and reiteration of friendship bring the interaction to a coherent close.\nThe topic coherence is maintained throughout, focusing entirely on the relational dynamic between Everest and Miquel. There are no irrelevant tangents or shifts in subject.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps detected:\n    - [00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B starts speaking at 00:08 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:09. This is a 1-second overlap.\n    - [00:30 - 00:42] Speaker A starts speaking at 00:30 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:31. This is also a 1-second overlap.\n    Both overlaps are very short (1 second) and occur naturally, likely indicating an eagerness to respond or a slight interruption, which is common in dynamic conversations and does not hinder understanding. They are not \"extended overlaps.\"\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are smooth and immediate, for example:\n    - Speaker B ends at 00:13, Speaker A starts at 00:14 (1-second pause).\n    - Speaker A ends at 00:24, Speaker B starts at 00:25 (1-second pause).\nThese brief pauses are natural and do not disrupt the flow of conversation.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking feel natural and fluent, reflecting a real-time interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--265",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Mike, is Jenny coming with us?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yes. Why?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: Nothing. I'm just curious if\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Just asking? But why is your face burning like mad? Ah-huh, someone has a crush on Jenny, doesn't he?\n[00:13 - 00:14] Speaker A: Who has a crush? !\n[00:14 - 00:20] Speaker B: Come on, Ted, don't be such a chicken. If you like her, you've got to tell her. Maybe she likes you too,\n[00:19 - 00:27] Speaker A: Wait, you think she might actually like me? I mean, I was just going to say I don't have the guts to ask her out.\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker B: What're you so afraid of? Just tell her what you're feeling about her.\n[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker A: I'd totally die if she turned me down.\n[00:34 - 00:45] Speaker B: But that's better than keeping everything to yourself. You've got to let her know. Come on! You've got to take a chance! Even though you are rejected, it's not the end of the world! There's nothing to lose, is there?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each turn builds logically and coherently on the previous one. The conversation starts with a simple question about Jenny's presence, quickly evolves into Speaker B's playful accusation of a crush based on Speaker A's reaction, and then naturally progresses into a discussion about Speaker A's feelings and fears of rejection. Speaker B's encouragement and counter-arguments are directly relevant to Speaker A's expressed hesitation. There are no abrupt topic shifts or illogical responses, making the conversation feel very natural and realistic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are no long pauses between turns; the speakers respond promptly to each other, maintaining a natural conversational pace. There is one brief overlap noted between [00:19 - 00:20] where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. As per the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this particular overlap lasts only 1 second, which is a common and natural occurrence in real-life dialogue, indicating engagement rather than disruption. There are no extended overlaps. The flow of conversation is smooth and uninterrupted by unnatural silences or prolonged simultaneous speech.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--372",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Good morning. Please come into my office.\n[00:03 - 00:03] Speaker B: Good morning. Thank you.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: I see that you have some impressive writing experience.\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B: Yes. I have written for several top newspapers in the country. I'm also in the process of writing my first novel, which\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker A: Oh, that sounds exciting! Could you tell me a bit more about the novel? What's the genre?\n[00:18 - 00:33] Speaker B: It's a psychological thriller. I was actually about to mention that it's been a challenging but rewarding experience. But before I continue, I wanted to ask—when you mentioned my writing experience earlier, were you referring to any specific articles or pieces that stood out to you?\n[00:33 - 00:43] Speaker A: Yes, I was particularly impressed by your investigative piece on corporate corruption. But you were saying the novel has been challenging—what aspects have been the most difficult?\n[00:44 - 00:49] Speaker B: The most difficult part has been maintaining the suspense while developing deep, complex characters.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speakers consistently answer questions and respond directly to the previous turn's content.\n- Speaker A's initial comments about writing experience are met with a relevant elaboration from Speaker B.\n- When Speaker B introduces the novel, Speaker A immediately picks up on it, showing engagement and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's interjection to ask for clarification (\"were you referring to any specific articles or pieces that stood out to you?\") is a natural conversational move, indicating active listening and interest in the interviewer's perspective.\n- Speaker A's response to this clarification is excellent: they answer the question and then skillfully pivot back to the novel, remembering Speaker B's earlier comment (\"But you were saying the novel has been challenging—what aspects have been the most difficult?\"). This demonstrates logical consistency and strong topic management, preventing the conversation from derailing while still addressing the earlier point.\n- Speaker B's final response directly answers Speaker A's question about the novel's difficulty.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses, topic shifts without smooth transitions, or logical inconsistencies. The conversation flows very naturally and coherently.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high.\n- There are small pauses, such as the 1-second pause between [00:02] and [00:03], and between [00:43] and [00:44]. These are natural and do not impede the flow of conversation.\n- There is a brief overlap between [00:13] and [00:14], where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. The instructions state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this 1-second overlap falls into that category; it is not prolonged or disruptive.\n- There are no long pauses or extended overlaps detected. The conversational turns are well-timed, making the dialogue feel natural and fluid.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--65",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Honey, I've got good news for you.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: What is it?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: You are going to be a father soon,\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: Wait, are you serious? Are you saying what I think you're saying?\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: Yes, I'm pregnant. We'll have our baby soon.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: Oh, dear, I'm so happy. But you didn't finish—what were you going to say? Father, right?\n[00:17 - 00:20] Speaker A: Yes, I was going to say you're going to be a father.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Speaker A initiates with good news, and Speaker B's reactions are consistently logical and coherent with the unfolding revelation. Speaker B's initial query (\"What is it?\") is a direct and relevant response. Speaker B's subsequent expressions of disbelief (\"Wait, are you serious?\") and joy (\"Oh, dear, I'm so happy.\") are perfectly aligned with the news of pregnancy. The slight confusion from Speaker B (\"But you didn't finish—what were you going to say? Father, right?\") is also logically consistent as it seeks clarification on the exact phrasing of the news, which Speaker A had started before being potentially interjected. Speaker A's final confirmation directly addresses this query, ensuring logical consistency and topic coherence are maintained throughout the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There is one brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at [0:05 - 0:06] where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This is a very short overlap (approximately 1 second) and is highly natural in an emotionally charged or exciting conversation, indicating eagerness and engagement rather than disruption. It does not qualify as an \"extended overlap\" that harms comprehension or flow. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; all transitions are quick and natural, typical of an engaged conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--308",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: You're going to get into a lot of trouble if you do that.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: What makes you say that? I\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker A: Because in these kinds of things, the trouble doesn't always appear at first. I don't see anything wrong with what we're doing!\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: That's just the problem. But everything has been so easy.\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker A: Everything has gone as smooth as clockwork. Just like we planned!\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B: That may be true, but if you were to do it, you would have trouble on the long-term. It's\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker A: Wait, what kind of trouble are you talking about? You always say that.\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker B: Yeah, you never look at the positive side of things.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B consistently challenges Speaker A's optimism or perceived naivete, while Speaker A tries to understand or counter Speaker B's warnings.\n\n*   Speaker A's initial warning is followed by Speaker B's request for clarification, which is relevant.\n*   Speaker A's explanation, \"Because in these kinds of things, the trouble doesn't always appear at first,\" directly addresses B's question. The subsequent \"I don't see anything wrong with what we're doing!\" adds an interesting layer, perhaps indicating A's own denial or an attempt to reassure B, without fully breaking coherence as it sets up B's next point.\n*   Speaker B's \"That's just the problem. But everything has been so easy.\" is a direct response to A's point about trouble not appearing at first, cleverly turning the \"ease\" into the potential problem.\n*   Speaker A's reinforcing \"Everything has gone as smooth as clockwork. Just like we planned!\" maintains topic coherence, either sarcastically or genuinely emphasizing the apparent lack of issues.\n*   Speaker B's \"That may be true, but if you were to do it, you would have trouble on the long-term. It's\" acknowledges A's point while reiterating the core concern about long-term trouble, keeping the conversation on track.\n*   Speaker A's \"Wait, what kind of trouble are you talking about? You always say that.\" is a relevant request for specificity and also highlights a recurring dynamic between the speakers.\n*   Speaker B's final response, \"Yeah, you never look at the positive side of things,\" doesn't directly answer \"what kind of trouble,\" but it is a relevant character assessment and response to A's \"You always say that,\" framing A's question as stemming from pessimism rather than genuine inquiry about specific issues. This is a common form of conversational evasion that maintains interpersonal relevance.\n\nOverall, the responses are logically consistent within the characters' apparent dynamic and the topic of potential future trouble is maintained throughout. There are no significant breaks in coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe transcript shows two instances of overlapping speech:\n1.  `[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: What makes you say that? I`\n    `[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker A: Because in these kinds of things, the trouble doesn't always appear at first. I don't see anything wrong with what we're doing!`\n    This is a 1-second overlap where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing.\n2.  `[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B: That may be true, but if you were to do it, you would have trouble on the long-term. It's`\n    `[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker A: Wait, what kind of trouble are you talking about? You always say that.`\n    This is another 1-second overlap where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing.\n\nAccording to the scoring criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" Both overlaps are 1 second in duration, which falls under \"brief\" and is acceptable in natural conversation. There are no long pauses indicated between turns. Therefore, the interactional fluency is appropriate and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 4
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--20617",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I can't believe I lost so much money. I feel like such an idiot.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Don't be too hard on yourself, Trevin. It could happen to anyone, and\n[00:07 - 00:16] Speaker A: But it didn't happen to anyone else. It happened to me. And now all the things I could have bought with that money are gone. I'll never be able to forgive myself\n[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker B: Trevin, I know it feels overwhelming right now, but let's focus on what we can do next. Maybe we can come up with a plan to start earning it back?\n[00:23 - 00:33] Speaker A: You're right. I just need to take it one step at a time. You're not a terrible person, Trevin. And you'll find a way to make the money back. You always do.\n[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker B: I don't know if I can do it this time. I feel like I've hit rock bottom.\n[00:37 - 00:41] Speaker A: You'll get through this, Trevin. I'm here for you. We'll get through this together.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits severe issues in logical consistency and topic coherence, primarily revolving around the identity of \"Trevin\" and the emotional states of the speakers.\n\nInitially:\n*   [00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A expresses distress about losing money.\n*   [00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B addresses Speaker A as \"Trevin\" and offers comfort, implying Speaker A is Trevin.\n*   [00:07 - 00:16] Speaker A (presumably Trevin) continues to express despair.\n*   [00:15 - 00:23] Speaker B continues to address Speaker A as \"Trevin\" and tries to shift to problem-solving.\n\nThen, a critical breakdown occurs:\n*   [00:23 - 00:33] Speaker A, who has been established as the distressed \"Trevin,\" first says \"You're right. I just need to take it one step at a time,\" which is a plausible response. However, Speaker A then says, \"You're not a terrible person, Trevin. And you'll find a way to make the money back. You always do.\" This creates a severe logical inconsistency. If Speaker A *is* Trevin, they are suddenly referring to themselves in the third person while offering comfort, which is highly unnatural and illogical for a standard conversation. It's as if Speaker A has suddenly taken on Speaker B's role, but still refers to themselves as \"Trevin\" in the third person.\n*   [00:33 - 00:37] Speaker B, who was comforting Speaker A (Trevin), now says, \"I don't know if I can do it this time. I feel like I've hit rock bottom.\" This is the exact sentiment Speaker A expressed at the beginning. This represents a complete role reversal. Speaker B is now the one in despair, having just been the comforter.\n*   [00:37 - 00:41] Speaker A then says, \"You'll get through this, Trevin. I'm here for you. We'll get through this together.\" This further solidifies the role reversal, with Speaker A now comforting Speaker B, whom Speaker A now refers to as \"Trevin.\"\n\nThe shifting identities and emotional states (\"Trevin\" being Speaker A, then Speaker B, or Speaker A having a severe dissociative episode) make the dialogue logically incoherent. The topic of despair and loss remains, but the *agents* experiencing and addressing it become entirely muddled, leading to a breakdown in understanding who is who and what their role is in the conversation. This represents a significant issue in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is generally good.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps identified:\n    *   [00:07 - 00:16] Speaker A starts at 0:07 while Speaker B ends at 0:08 (1-second overlap).\n    *   [00:15 - 00:23] Speaker B starts at 0:15 while Speaker A ends at 0:16 (1-second overlap).\n    These are short, 1-second overlaps. The evaluation criteria state that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" These fit the definition of brief and acceptable overlaps, suggesting a natural, slightly eager or empathetic turn-taking rather than disruptive or prolonged interruptions.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no indications of long pauses between speaker turns in the provided timestamps. Turns follow each other immediately or with very brief overlaps.\n\nTherefore, from a purely timing and turn-taking perspective, the interaction flows well.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--73662",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Emily! I'm doing great. How are you?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: I'm good. Just hanging out at home and getting some things done. What about you?\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: I'm on vacation in Europe right now. It's been really great so far.\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker B: That sounds amazing! What have you been doing?\n[00:15 - 00:25] Speaker A: Well, I just got back from Paris yesterday. Today I'm going to tour some of the cathedrals here in Rome. Tomorrow I'm thinking about taking a\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: Oh, Rome! Have you had a chance to visit the Colosseum yet? I've heard it's breathtaking in person.\n[00:29 - 00:38] Speaker A: Not yet! The Colosseum is on my list for later this week. I was actually saying I'm thinking about going to Florence tomorrow.\n[00:38 - 00:42] Speaker B: Florence sounds wonderful too! Make sure to check out the Uffizi Gallery if you can.\n[00:43 - 00:48] Speaker A: Definitely! I can't wait to see all the art. So when are you coming back?\n[00:49 - 00:51] Speaker B: In a couple of weeks. I can't wait to see you!\n[00:51 - 00:54] Speaker A: Me too! Have a great time the rest of your trip.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement, ensuring a coherent conversation flow. For example, Speaker B's question \"What have you been doing?\" logically follows Speaker A's declaration of being on vacation. Similarly, Speaker B's interjection about the Colosseum is directly prompted by Speaker A mentioning being in Rome, and Speaker A's subsequent response smoothly addresses the Colosseum question before returning to their original thought about Florence. The shift in topic initiated by Speaker A (\"So when are you coming back?\") is also a natural conversational pivot in a personal exchange between friends, maintaining relevance to their relationship. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or inconsistent responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; most transitions are immediate or involve only a 1-second pause, which is natural. There is one brief overlap detected between Speaker A and Speaker B (`[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: Oh, Rome! Have you had a chance to visit the Colosseum yet? I've heard it's breathtaking in person.` while `[00:15 - 00:25] Speaker A:` is still speaking). This overlap lasts for about 1 second (00:24-00:25), which falls within the acceptable range of \"brief overlaps\" as per the instructions. This brief overlap also serves the purpose of Speaker B showing engagement and enthusiasm, which can enhance natural conversation rather than hinder it. No \"prolonged pauses\" or \"extended overlaps\" are present.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--61254",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, Wil. How are you doing today?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm doing well, thank you. How are you?\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: I'm doing great, thanks for asking. So, I hear that your children are having some trouble in school lately. Is there anything I can [interrupt]\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: Actually, it's more about my son struggling with math. Do you happen to know any good tutors?\n[00:16 - 00:30] Speaker A: Oh, I do know a couple of great tutors! I was just about to ask if there's anything I can help with specifically, but it sounds like finding a tutor would be a good start. I was also going to suggest some online resources [interrupt]\n[00:29 - 00:32] Speaker B: Yes, that would be a huge help. Thanks for offering.\n[00:32 - 00:40] Speaker A: You're welcome. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help out in the future though, okay?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n*   Speaker A initiates a conversation and transitions smoothly to a known topic (children's school trouble).\n*   Speaker B clarifies the specific issue (son struggling with math) and poses a direct, relevant question (asking for tutors).\n*   Speaker A responds directly to the question, offering help with tutors and acknowledging Speaker B's specific need. Speaker A also attempts to offer further relevant suggestions (online resources).\n*   Speaker B confirms the relevance and utility of Speaker A's offer.\n*   Speaker A provides a polite and consistent closing offer of help.\nEach turn builds logically on the previous one, and the conversation remains focused on the central issue and its resolution without digressions or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, reflecting natural conversation.\n*   **[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: ...anything I can [interrupt]** and **[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B:** This is a brief, natural overlap where Speaker B anticipates or clarifies before Speaker A finishes their sentence. It's not prolonged and indicates active listening and engagement rather than disruption.\n*   **[00:16 - 00:30] Speaker A: ...online resources [interrupt]** and **[00:29 - 00:32] Speaker B:** Again, a brief and natural overlap. Speaker B jumps in to express gratitude and acceptance as Speaker A is still listing potential ideas, which is common in fluid conversations.\nThere are no long pauses between turns. The overlaps are brief and indicative of an engaged, dynamic conversation, not a hindrance.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--94464",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey Owyn. What's up?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Not much. Just hanging out with my family.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: That's cool. I saw you at the movies the other day. Were\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: Oh, right! We were just trying to get out of the house for a bit. What movie did you catch?\n[00:12 - 00:22] Speaker A: I actually saw the new action movie that just came out. But anyway, I know how that is. My family does that too sometimes. So, what have you been up to lately?\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker B: Just hanging out with my friends and family. Going to the park, playing basketball. You know, stuff like that. It's\n[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker A: Basketball? I thought you were more into soccer. Did you switch it up recently?\n[00:33 - 00:40] Speaker B: Yeah, I still play soccer, but I've been getting into basketball more lately. It's a good way to stay active and hang out with friends.\n[00:40 - 00:48] Speaker A: Yeah, I see you at the park sometimes when I go to play basketball with my friends. It's always cool to see familiar faces there.\n[00:48 - 00:53] Speaker B: Definitely. It's nice to have a friendly face around when you're trying to stay active.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the ongoing conversation. For example, Speaker B's mention of \"hanging out with my family\" smoothly transitions to Speaker A recalling seeing them at the movies, which Speaker B then acknowledges and asks a relevant follow-up. Later, Speaker A picks up on Speaker B's mention of \"basketball\" and clarifies a perceived inconsistency with Speaker B's usual sport, showing active listening and topic coherence. Speaker B then provides a clear and consistent explanation. The conversation flows naturally from general greetings and updates to specific activities and shared experiences, maintaining a clear and understandable narrative arc. There are no abrupt topic shifts or illogical statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is excellent in this dialogue. There is one brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at `[00:07 - 00:12]`. Speaker B begins their turn (\"Oh, right!...\") while Speaker A is still speaking (\"Were\"). This overlap is approximately one second and comes across as an eager, natural interruption rather than a disruptive one. It indicates a high level of engagement and anticipation. There are no extended overlaps that hinder understanding, nor are there any long, unnatural pauses between turns. The turn-taking is prompt and natural, contributing to a smooth and realistic conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--80",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I'm here to sign the agreement.\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: I'm sorry. The agreement hasn't been fully prepared. It will be ready by tomorrow afternoon\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: Can you speed it up and let us have it today?\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker B: I'll try my best. Here is the draft. Would you please go over it and see if any modifications are needed?\n[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker A: Let me have a look. Well, it contains basically all we have agreed upon. How about the terms concerning packing?\n[00:23 - 00:31] Speaker B: I don't think so. By the way, did you get a chance to check the section on pricing? I was wondering if it aligns with our previous discussions.\n[00:31 - 00:40] Speaker A: Oh, I haven't checked that yet. I'll review it now. If everything looks good, you can type the agreement this evening and have it duplicated for signatures.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or logically follows the previous one, maintaining a clear conversational thread about reviewing and finalizing an agreement.\n\n*   Speaker B's initial response (0:02-0:07) directly addresses Speaker A's purpose.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up question (0:06-0:09) is a direct request based on B's information.\n*   Speaker B's offer of the draft (0:09-0:15) is a relevant compromise to A's request.\n*   Speaker A's review and specific question about packing terms (0:15-0:23) are directly related to the draft.\n*   Speaker B's response \"I don't think so\" (0:23-0:31) to the packing terms question is slightly abrupt and immediately followed by a topic shift to \"pricing.\" While this is a redirection rather than a direct elaboration on the packing terms, it is still within the broader context of reviewing different sections of the agreement. It does not break the logical flow or overall topic coherence of finalizing the document; it simply prioritizes checking another section. This is a minor conversational maneuver, not a significant relevance issue.\n*   Speaker A's final response (0:31-0:40) directly addresses the pricing question and outlines the next steps for the agreement's finalization, which is perfectly relevant to the ongoing discussion.\n\nOverall, the responses are highly relevant, and the dialogue progresses logically towards its objective. The slight redirection by Speaker B regarding packing terms is not a significant coherence breakdown.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is natural and appropriate.\n\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There is one minor overlap identified: [00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A's turn starts at 0:06 while Speaker B's turn ends at 0:07. This constitutes a 1-second overlap. This is a brief overlap, which is common and natural in conversational turns, indicating active listening and turn-taking without being prolonged or disruptive. It does not qualify as an \"extended overlap\" that would harm fluency.\n*   **Long Pauses:** There are no instances of long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are smooth, with typical, short conversational pauses.\n\nThe timing of turns suggests a fluent and natural conversation flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--108530",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, I like your hat. Can I try it on?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yeah, sure.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: Thanks! It looks good on me, right?\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: Yeah, it does. You should consider wearing\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A: Actually, before I take it, are you really okay with giving it away? I don't want to take something you might miss later.\n[00:15 - 00:17] Speaker B: I'm sure. I have plenty of other hats.\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker A: That's really kind of you. Thank you so much!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n*   Speaker B's \"Yeah, sure\" is a direct and relevant answer to Speaker A's request to try on the hat.\n*   Speaker B's \"Yeah, it does. You should consider wearing\" is a natural follow-up to Speaker A's question about how the hat looks.\n*   Speaker A's subsequent interjection, \"Actually, before I take it, are you really okay with giving it away?\", shows excellent logical progression. Speaker A interprets B's \"you should consider wearing\" as an implicit offer for Speaker A to keep the hat, and proactively addresses the ethical consideration of taking something that might be important to Speaker B, demonstrating politeness and thoughtfulness. This is a very natural and positive interactional move.\n*   Speaker B's \"I'm sure. I have plenty of other hats\" directly answers Speaker A's concern and provides justification, maintaining the logical flow.\n*   Speaker A's final \"That's really kind of you. Thank you so much!\" is a relevant expression of gratitude, concluding the exchange smoothly.\nAll turns build upon the previous ones in a coherent and natural manner, indicating excellent response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n*   There are small, acceptable pauses between turns (e.g., A finishes at 00:02, B starts at 00:03; B finishes at 00:17, A starts at 00:18). These 1-second gaps are natural in conversation and do not constitute \"long pauses.\"\n*   There is one instance of an overlap: Speaker B speaks from [00:07 - 00:09], and Speaker A begins speaking at [00:08], resulting in a 1-second overlap. Speaker B's sentence \"You should consider wearing\" is cut off by Speaker A's \"Actually, before I take it...\". While an overlap exists, it is brief (1 second) and contextually appropriate. Speaker A is interjecting to clarify a potential misunderstanding or to express a politeness concern immediately upon perceiving an implicit offer from Speaker B. This type of brief, anticipatory overlap is common in natural, engaged conversation and does not hinder communication; rather, it indicates active listening and engagement. It does not qualify as a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap according to the guidelines.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking feel natural and fluid.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--69",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Oh dear, my weight has gone up again.\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: I am not surprised, you eat too many snacks\n[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker A: Sorry, are you saying it's all about my eating habits? I mean, I suppose sitting at the desk all day at the office doesn't help either.\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker B: No, I wouldn't think so.\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker A: I do wish I could lose weight.\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker B: Well, why don't you go on a diet?\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker A: I've tried diets before but they've never really given\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B: Speaking of diets, have you considered combining it with exercise? Maybe joining an exercise class could really make a difference.\n[00:28 - 00:36] Speaker A: That's a good point. I was going to say diets alone haven't worked for me, so adding exercise might be just what I need.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n*   Speaker B's initial comment about snacks is a direct and relevant response to Speaker A's weight concern, attributing a cause.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up questions and observations (\"Sorry, are you saying it's all about my eating habits? I mean, I suppose sitting at the desk all day at the office doesn't help either.\") are relevant, seeking clarification and adding another potential factor to the discussion.\n*   Speaker B's \"No, I wouldn't think so\" at [00:12 - 00:14] is a direct, albeit concise, response to A's suggestion about the desk job, indicating a continued focus on diet/snack habits as the primary issue.\n*   Speaker A's wish to lose weight naturally flows from the preceding discussion.\n*   Speaker B's suggestion to \"go on a diet\" is a relevant solution to A's expressed wish.\n*   Speaker A's partial response (\"I've tried diets before but they've never really given\") sets up a natural opening for Speaker B.\n*   Speaker B's suggestion to combine diet with exercise (\"Speaking of diets, have you considered combining it with exercise?\") is highly relevant, building on A's incomplete thought and offering a refined solution to the recurring problem (diets alone not working).\n*   Speaker A's final response (\"That's a good point. I was going to say diets alone haven't worked for me, so adding exercise might be just what I need.\") perfectly ties back to their previous incomplete statement and acknowledges B's constructive suggestion.\nThe conversation flows logically, with each turn building coherently on the previous one, demonstrating clear topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural and appropriate.\n*   There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The longest pause observed is 1 second between Speaker A's turn at 0:16 and Speaker B's turn at 0:17, which is a brief and acceptable pause in natural conversation.\n*   There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    *   `[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker A:` overlaps with `[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B:` for 1 second (from 0:04 to 0:05). This is a very short overlap, suggesting Speaker A is eager to respond or clarify immediately after Speaker B's statement, which is common in dynamic conversation.\n    *   `[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B:` overlaps with `[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker A:` for 1 second (from 0:21 to 0:22). Again, this is a brief overlap where Speaker B likely jumps in as Speaker A is finishing an incomplete sentence, suggesting an active and engaged listener ready to contribute.\nBoth overlaps are brief (1 second each) and do not appear to be disruptive or prolonged. They contribute to the natural, informal feel of the dialogue, indicating engaged participation rather than poor turn-taking. According to the criteria, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--620",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: The European Union isn't sustainable. If you add up all of the European Union's financial commitments, you see that it's going to collapse under\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I have a different opinion. I think the financial commitments can actually be managed better with more stringent economic policies.\n[00:15 - 00:28] Speaker A: I understand your point, but even with stringent policies, many countries might still face bankruptcy. I know that we need to join the European Union to make America strong again, but what's a good strategy to\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker B: I just thought of something—how about balancing our involvement by also strengthening our local economies? Could that be a compromise?\n[00:34 - 00:43] Speaker A: That's an interesting idea. The US should join the European Union while building our own trading networks. We should protect America's sovereignty and independence.\n[00:44 - 00:49] Speaker B: It's good to protect America's independence, but it makes more sense to join the European Union.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in logical consistency and topic coherence, primarily due to Speaker A's contributions.\n- **Initial Stance:** Speaker A starts by arguing \"The European Union isn't sustainable\" and \"it's going to collapse\" due to financial commitments. This establishes a negative view of the EU.\n- **Sudden Contradiction (Speaker A):** In the third turn [00:15 - 00:28], Speaker A states, \"I know that we need to join the European Union to make America strong again.\" This is a direct and severe logical contradiction to Speaker A's initial statement that the EU is unsustainable and collapsing. It is illogical to advocate joining something that one believes is on the verge of collapse. This dramatically undermines the coherence of Speaker A's argument and the overall dialogue.\n- **Continued Contradiction (Speaker A):** Speaker A reiterates this contradictory stance in the fifth turn [00:34 - 00:43]: \"The US should join the European Union while building our own trading networks. We should protect America's sovereignty and independence.\" The idea of \"joining the European Union\" while simultaneously asserting the need to \"protect America's sovereignty and independence\" creates another significant logical inconsistency, as joining a union inherently involves some degree of shared sovereignty.\n- **Speaker B's Role:** Speaker B's responses are generally relevant to Speaker A's (albeit inconsistent) statements. Speaker B attempts to offer counter-arguments, compromises, and engage with the premises set by Speaker A. However, Speaker B does not explicitly challenge or address the fundamental logical inconsistency in Speaker A's argument about the EU's viability versus the stated need for America to join it. While Speaker B's individual turns are relevant, the overall logical consistency of the conversation is severely hampered by Speaker A's contradictory claims.\n\nGiven Speaker A's fundamental logical inconsistencies, the dialogue suffers significantly in Response Relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is generally appropriate and natural, aligning with the acceptable levels of pauses and overlaps as defined by the prompt.\n- **Overlaps:**\n    - [00:07 - 00:08]: Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A for 1 second. Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates a natural, albeit brief, interjection.\n    - [00:27 - 00:28]: Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A for 1 second. This is also a brief overlap, typical of natural conversation where a speaker might interject with a thought (\"I just thought of something\").\n    Both overlaps are very brief (1 second) and fall within the \"brief overlaps\" category deemed acceptable by the instructions.\n- **Pauses:**\n    - [00:33 - 00:34]: A 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn and Speaker A's turn.\n    - [00:43 - 00:44]: A 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn and Speaker B's turn.\n    These are short pauses, which are acceptable and contribute to a natural conversational rhythm rather than indicating a breakdown in fluency.\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses observed that would be harmful to the interactional flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--122",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey Ayden, I was wondering if you could do me a favor.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: That depends. What is it?\n[00:06 - 00:21] Speaker A: It's kind of a big favor. I'm absolutely flat broke, and I owe my landlady $200. She's given me until Friday to give it to her, but I don't get paid until next Monday. Do you think you could loan me some cash until I get back on\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker B: Wait, so you won't have any money until Monday? That sounds stressful. How much exactly do you need?\n[00:25 - 00:33] Speaker A: Yeah, it's been pretty tough. I need $200, but I'll pay you back on Monday. I promise. Do you think you could help?\n[00:34 - 00:41] Speaker B: I'd love to help you out, but I'm a bit short on cash this month as well. I had to get a new engine put into my car, and that ate up my savings.\n[00:41 - 00:48] Speaker A: If you can't give me the full amount, a fraction of it would still help. I'll pay you back on Monday, as I mentioned earlier.\n[00:48 - 00:58] Speaker B: Let's see, I've got about $50 to get me through the weekend. I can only spare about $20. I would give you more if I had it, I just don't have much money to my name right now.\n[00:58 - 01:09] Speaker A: Thanks a lot, Ayden. Every little bit will help. Tell you what, if you aren't doing anything tonight, why don't you come over and have dinner at my place? I\n[01:08 - 01:12] Speaker B: Dinner sounds nice! But before I forget, what time do you want me to come over?\n[01:13 - 01:15] Speaker A: How about at 6 pm?\n[01:15 - 01:17] Speaker B: That works for me. See you then!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the conversation's context.\n- Speaker B's initial \"That depends. What is it?\" is a natural response to a favor request.\n- Speaker A's detailed explanation of their financial predicament and direct request for a loan is coherent.\n- Speaker B's clarifying question \"How much exactly do you need?\" (despite A having mentioned $200) serves to confirm and show engagement.\n- Speaker B's explanation for not being able to provide the full amount (\"I'm a bit short on cash... had to get a new engine\") is a reasonable and consistent reason for declining the full request.\n- Speaker A's quick adaptation to ask for a \"fraction of it\" demonstrates flexibility and maintains the goal of the conversation.\n- Speaker B's specific offer of \"$20\" and explanation (\"I would give you more if I had it\") is realistic and consistent with their stated limitations.\n- The transition from the financial request to the dinner invitation is a natural social gesture of appreciation from Speaker A, and Speaker B's acceptance and follow-up question about time are perfectly relevant to this new, yet related, topic.\nThe dialogue maintains logical consistency and topic coherence throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- Pauses between turns are consistently short (e.g., 1 second between [00:03] and [00:04], [00:33] and [00:34], [01:12] and [01:13]), which is natural for a flowing conversation.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - [00:20 - 00:25] Speaker B starts speaking at 00:20 while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence at 00:21. This is a 1-second overlap. This type of brief overlap often occurs when one speaker interjects with a clarifying question or an immediate reaction, which is natural.\n    - [01:08 - 01:12] Speaker B starts speaking at 01:08 while Speaker A is finishing at 01:09. This is also a 1-second overlap. Speaker B's immediate enthusiastic response (\"Dinner sounds nice!\") followed by a practical question shows engagement and a natural conversational rhythm.\nBoth overlaps are brief and do not disrupt the flow or understanding of the dialogue. They seem to indicate active listening and engagement rather than poor turn-taking. There are no prolonged pauses detected.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--387",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Awful! My cell phone is out of service again. Fred, can you lend me some money?\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker B: How much do you want?\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker A: 200 yuan. I bought a new computer online, so I have to pay the mort for the\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: Wait, you bought a new computer? What happened to your old one?\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker A: Oh, the old one broke down last week. But about the mortgage—I'm really in a bind right now.\n[00:21 - 00:23] Speaker B: I am so sorry to hear that. Is that enough?\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker A: It's so nice of you. You really make my day.\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker B: Forget it! We seemingly need to gather money little by little.\n[00:31 - 00:44] Speaker A: What you said is absolutely right. By the way, I didn't get to finish earlier—I have to pay the mortgage soon, so the 200 yuan would really help. I'll pay you back as soon as I get back on my feet.\n[00:44 - 00:47] Speaker B: No rush. You can give it back whenever you have it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates good response relevance and logical consistency.\n*   Speaker A initiates the conversation with a problem and a request for money, to which Speaker B responds directly by asking \"How much do you want?\". This is a relevant follow-up.\n*   Speaker A provides the amount and attempts to justify the need for money by mentioning a new computer and \"mortgage\". While the connection between a computer and a mortgage is initially confusing, Speaker B picks up on the \"new computer\" and asks a relevant clarifying question (\"What happened to your old one?\").\n*   Speaker A clarifies the old computer situation and then explicitly re-emphasizes the \"mortgage\" need, which implies that was the main point. This shows logical consistency in Speaker A's underlying need, even if initially expressed confusingly.\n*   Speaker B expresses empathy (\"I am so sorry to hear that\") and directly proceeds to offer the money (\"Is that enough?\"), which is highly relevant to the established purpose of the conversation (lending money).\n*   Speaker A expresses gratitude.\n*   Speaker B's comment \"Forget it! We seemingly need to gather money little by little\" is a slight tangential observation, but it doesn't derail the conversation's core purpose and can be interpreted as a general reflection on financial matters, following the emotional tone of Speaker A's gratitude. It's not a non-sequitur.\n*   Speaker A then reiterates the \"mortgage\" reason and promises to pay back, further clarifying and solidifying the loan agreement. This shows coherence in the topic.\n*   Speaker B's final response (\"No rush. You can give it back whenever you have it.\") is highly relevant and supportive, concluding the loan agreement.\nOverall, the speakers maintain topic coherence and respond logically to each other, even when one speaker's statement might be slightly ambiguous at first.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n*   There is one instance of overlap: `[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B` overlaps with `[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker A` for about 1 second. Speaker B's interjection \"Wait, you bought a new computer?\" serves as a natural, brief interruption for clarification, which is a common and acceptable feature of fluent conversation, especially when new, potentially surprising information is introduced. This is not a \"prolonged\" or disruptive overlap.\n*   There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The turn-taking is prompt and natural throughout the dialogue.\nBased on the criteria, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this dialogue demonstrates that.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--473",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, I'm doing great! How are you?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm doing great! What are you eating?\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm eating some nuts.\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker B: Aren't nuts bad for you?\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: They're healthy! Especially when they're not roasted in\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but are you sure all nuts are healthy? I've read some conflicting information about certain types.\n[00:18 - 00:26] Speaker A: Yes, some nuts are healthier than others, but generally, unsalted ones are good for you. Nuts are so good! Do you like dried fruits?\n[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker B: I like dried fruit but I don't have much of a sweet tooth.\n[00:30 - 00:31] Speaker A: Do you have a sweet tooth?\n[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker B: I do! Do you like sweets?\n[00:34 - 00:39] Speaker A: I actually don't have a sweet tooth at all! I like savory food the most.\n[00:39 - 00:42] Speaker B: You don't? I thought all girls had a sweet tooth.\n[00:42 - 00:45] Speaker A: I don't. I only like savory food.\n[00:46 - 00:47] Speaker B: Do you like olives?\n[00:47 - 00:50] Speaker A: I like olives, but not on their own because\n[00:49 - 00:54] Speaker B: Wait, why not? What is it about eating olives on their own that you don't like?\n[00:54 - 00:58] Speaker A: It's just the strong taste. I'll have to try it again sometime.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains good logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's first question \"What are you eating?\" naturally follows Speaker A's greeting. The conversation then focuses on food, specifically nuts, their health aspects, and then transitions smoothly to dried fruits and sweet/savory preferences. The shift to \"olives\" is also logically connected to Speaker A's preference for savory food.\n\nHowever, there is one noticeable hiccup in logical consistency:\n*   At [00:26 - 00:29], Speaker B states: \"I like dried fruit but I don't have much of a sweet tooth.\"\n*   Immediately after, at [00:30 - 00:31], Speaker A asks: \"Do you have a sweet tooth?\" This question directly ignores or contradicts Speaker B's preceding statement, indicating a lapse in active listening or an unclear interpretation.\n*   Speaker B's response at [00:31 - 00:34], \"I do! Do you like sweets?\" further complicates this. If they \"don't have much of a sweet tooth,\" saying \"I do!\" in response to \"Do you have a sweet tooth?\" is confusing and slightly contradictory, unless \"not much of a sweet tooth\" implies a weak one, but still having one. This exchange breaks the smooth logical flow.\n\nDespite this, the conversation quickly recovers, and the rest of the turns are logically consistent and relevant to the evolving topic. The topic transitions are generally smooth, from nuts to general food preferences (sweet/savory) and then to specific savory items (olives).\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits some significant issues in interactional fluency due to extended overlaps.\n*   **Extended Overlap 1:** At [00:09 - 00:12], Speaker A says \"Especially when they're not roasted in\". Speaker B then explicitly says \"Sorry to interrupt, but are you sure all nuts are healthy?\" beginning at [00:11 - 00:17]. This overlap lasts for approximately 1 second, cutting off Speaker A's sentence mid-word. Speaker B's explicit apology confirms it was a recognized interruption, indicative of a disrupted turn-taking. This is a prolonged overlap as A's speech is actively cut short by B.\n*   **Extended Overlap 2:** At [00:47 - 00:50], Speaker A says \"I like olives, but not on their own because\". Speaker B interjects at [00:49 - 00:54] with \"Wait, why not? What is it about eating olives on their own that you don't like?\". Similar to the first instance, this overlap lasts for approximately 1 second, again cutting off Speaker A's sentence mid-word. While the interruption serves to clarify, the act of cutting off the other speaker repeatedly is a significant fluency issue as per the guidelines (prolonged overlapping turns are harmful).\n\nSmall pauses between turns (e.g., 1 second) are acceptable and do not hinder fluency. However, the two instances of prolonged overlap where one speaker is cut off mid-sentence by the other clearly indicate issues with natural turn-taking and contribute to a less fluid and natural conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--449",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I'd like to see that pen, please.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: You mean this one?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: No, the other one in the brown case. It\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: Oh, the one in the brown case? Here you go.\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker A: May I try it?\n[00:09 - 00:10] Speaker B: Sure.\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker A: It's very smooth. I'll probably use\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in—do you need any ink refills with that?\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: I was actually going to say I'll take it, but yes, I might need some refills too.\n[00:21 - 00:23] Speaker B: Great! So, cash or charge?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, contributing to a clear and coherent conversation flow.\n\n*   Speaker A's initial request for a pen is met by Speaker B's clarifying question, \"You mean this one?\", which is perfectly relevant.\n*   Speaker A's subsequent clarification, \"No, the other one in the brown case,\" directly addresses Speaker B's question.\n*   Speaker B's \"Oh, the one in the brown case? Here you go,\" acknowledges the clarification and fulfills the request.\n*   Speaker A's \"May I try it?\" is a natural follow-up once the pen is presented.\n*   Speaker B's \"Sure\" is a direct and relevant affirmation.\n*   Speaker A's evaluation, \"It's very smooth. I'll probably use,\" is a logical progression as they try the pen.\n*   Speaker B's interjection, \"Sorry to jump in—do you need any ink refills with that?\" while an interruption, is highly contextually relevant as a sales inquiry when a customer is considering purchasing a pen. It's a common upsell strategy.\n*   Speaker A's response, \"I was actually going to say I'll take it, but yes, I might need some refills too,\" brilliantly addresses both their interrupted original thought and Speaker B's question.\n*   Finally, Speaker B's \"Great! So, cash or charge?\" is the logical next step to finalize the transaction.\n\nThe topic remains consistent throughout (finding and purchasing a pen), and the logical progression of the conversation is maintained despite a minor interruption.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good, demonstrating natural conversational rhythm with acceptable pauses and brief overlaps.\n\n*   **Pauses:** There are small pauses (1 second) between Speaker A's initial request and Speaker B's response, and between Speaker B's offering the pen and Speaker A's request to try it. These are brief and do not indicate hesitation or disengagement; rather, they feel natural as participants process information or formulate their next turn.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two instances of brief overlaps, both around 1 second:\n    *   [00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: No, the other one in the brown case. It\n    *   [00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: Oh, the one in the brown case? Here you go.\n        *   Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. Speaker B's immediate understanding and response (\"Oh, the one in the brown case?\") suggest anticipation, which is common in fluid conversation. Speaker A's sentence (\"It\") is cut off, but this is a natural occurrence, not a prolonged interruption.\n    *   [00:10 - 00:13] Speaker A: It's very smooth. I'll probably use\n    *   [00:12 - 00:15] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in—do you need any ink refills with that?\n        *   Speaker B explicitly acknowledges the overlap with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which signals politeness and awareness, further contributing to a natural flow. Speaker A's sentence (\"I'll probably use\") is again cut off, but the subsequent response shows they clearly processed the interruption.\n\nNeither the overlaps nor the pauses are \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" as defined by the criteria. They fall within the realm of natural conversational dynamics, indicating a well-paced and responsive interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--128482",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, long time no see. How have you been?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: I've been good. How about you?\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: Yeah, I've been good too. I'm surprised to see you here, especially\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but I just felt like it's been ages since we last talked. What brought you around here today?\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker A: I was just in the area and thought I'd stop by and say hi.\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B: Oh, okay. Well, it was nice seeing you.\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker A: Wait, aren't you going to invite me in? I\n[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker B: No, I don't think that's a good idea.\n[00:27 - 00:29] Speaker A: Why not? We used to be such good friends.\n[00:30 - 00:34] Speaker B: Yeah, we did. But things changed and I don't think it would be a good idea to reconnect right now.\n[00:35 - 00:37] Speaker A: Why not? What happened?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- The initial exchange of greetings and inquiries about well-being is perfectly natural and relevant.\n- Speaker B's interjection at [00:09] is explicitly acknowledged (\"Sorry to jump in\") and directly relates to the \"long time no see\" theme, followed by a relevant question.\n- Speaker A's answer at [00:14] directly addresses Speaker B's question.\n- Speaker B's attempt to end the conversation at [00:19] is a clear, albeit cold, response to Speaker A's presence, indicating a logical shift in their dynamic.\n- Speaker A's challenge at [00:22] and subsequent questions are direct and relevant given Speaker B's abruptness.\n- Speaker B's reluctance and explanation at [00:24] and [00:30] maintain consistency with their desire to disengage.\n- Speaker A's persistent questioning at [00:27] and [00:35] logically pushes for an explanation, driving the narrative forward.\nThe conversation flows naturally from a reunion to a tense confrontation, with each turn logically building upon the previous one and maintaining a clear topic trajectory of a strained relationship.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high.\n- **Pauses:** All observed pauses between turns (e.g., 00:02-00:03, 00:18-00:19, 00:21-00:22, etc.) are consistently 1 second. These are considered \"small pauses\" and are perfectly acceptable and natural in conversation, indicating thoughtful turn-taking without awkward silence. There are no \"long pauses.\"\n- **Overlaps:**\n    - At [00:09], Speaker B overlaps Speaker A by 1 second (from 00:09 to 00:10). However, Speaker B immediately acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the overlap an intentional and interactionally aware move rather than a disruptive one. This is a \"brief overlap\" that enhances the naturalness and urgency of Speaker B's interjection.\n    - At [00:24], Speaker B overlaps Speaker A by 1 second (from 00:24 to 00:25). This brief overlap occurs as Speaker B is trying to cut Speaker A off and reinforce their boundary. It contributes to the tension and abruptness of the interaction, making it a natural reflection of the emotional dynamic rather than a harmful disruption.\nBoth overlaps are brief (1 second) and contextually appropriate, serving to either demonstrate interactional awareness or convey emotional intensity. They do not hinder understanding or create awkwardness. Therefore, neither is \"prolonged\" or \"harmful.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--76",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Where are you going, Jane?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: I'm going to the hospital to see Susan.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: I saw her yesterday. She was a little worried about\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but do you know if I must catch a number 7 bus to get there?\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker A: No, you needn't. A number 13 bus will also take you to the hospital.\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker B: Number 13 buses run much more frequently, don't they?\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker A: Yes. I caught a number 7 bus yesterday, and they said I had taken a wrong turn, but\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker B: Oh, I see. By the way, how was Susan when you saw her? You mentioned she was a little...\n[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker A: Right, she was a little better. Thank you, Henry. I'll get a number 13.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial interruption (0:07) is justified by an immediate practical concern related to the primary topic (getting to the hospital to see Susan). Speaker A addresses this directly. The conversation then naturally flows into bus routes and frequency. Speaker B's second interruption (0:25) expertly brings the conversation back to the original topic of Susan's condition, showing good memory of the earlier point Speaker A was making. Speaker A picks up on this thread smoothly. The topics are coherent, and the shifts are well-managed and logical within the context of a spontaneous conversation.\nA minor inconsistency detected: Speaker A initially addresses Speaker B as \"Jane\" (0:00) but later thanks \"Henry\" (0:30). This doesn't affect the relevance of the *responses* themselves, but is a character naming inconsistency within the script.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction displays excellent fluency. There are no prolonged pauses between turns; most transitions are immediate or involve only a brief, natural pause (e.g., 1-second gaps). Two instances of overlapping speech are present:\n1.  `[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but...` - Speaker B starts speaking at 0:07, which is precisely when Speaker A's previous turn `[00:04 - 00:07]` ends. The explicit \"Sorry to interrupt\" confirms an intended interruption, which is a natural aspect of fluent conversation, especially when seeking urgent clarification. This is a brief, acceptable overlap/cut-off.\n2.  `[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker B: Oh, I see. By the way...` - Speaker B begins speaking at 0:25 while Speaker A's turn `[00:20 - 00:26]` is still ongoing. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B's \"Oh, I see\" acts as a back-channel signal of understanding, a common and natural occurrence in conversational turn-taking, allowing for smooth transition and topic shifts without awkward silence.\n\nBoth overlaps are brief and contribute to the naturalness of the dialogue rather than hindering it. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would disrupt the flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--42450",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, doctor. What's up?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Not much, Victor. How are you feeling today?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm feeling good. No complaints.\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B: That's great to hear. Have you been taking your vitamins and minerals regularly to\n[00:12 - 00:21] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but speaking of vitamins, I wanted to ask if there's anything specific I should be focusing on, considering my diet?\n[00:21 - 00:32] Speaker B: That's a good question. Since you're already careful about what you put into your body, I'd recommend focusing on a balanced intake of all essential nutrients. But as I was saying, have you been taking them regularly?\n[00:33 - 00:36] Speaker A: Yeah, I have. I'm really careful about that.\n[00:36 - 00:42] Speaker B: Good for you. Victor, you're a young person and you're in excellent health overall. Keep up the good work and you'll be fine.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A's initial greeting \"Hey, doctor. What's up?\" sets the context for a medical consultation, which Speaker B immediately picks up on by asking about Speaker A's health. Speaker A's response is directly relevant. Speaker B's follow-up question about vitamins and minerals is appropriate for a doctor-patient interaction. Speaker A's interjection \"Sorry to cut in, but speaking of vitamins, I wanted to ask if there's anything specific I should be focusing on, considering my diet?\" is highly relevant to the ongoing topic of vitamins and demonstrates an active engagement with the health advice. Speaker B handles this interjection well, addressing the new question (\"That's a good question. Since you're already careful about what you put into your body, I'd recommend focusing on a balanced intake of all essential nutrients.\") before skillfully circling back to their original question (\"But as I was saying, have you been taking them regularly?\"). This shows excellent topic management and a logical progression of thought. Speaker A's final answer and Speaker B's concluding remarks are all directly responsive and logically consistent with the preceding turns. There are no irrelevant statements or major detours from the central theme of health and well-being.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates good fluency with only one brief overlap indicated. The overlap at [00:12 - 00:21] where Speaker A says \"Sorry to cut in, but speaking of vitamins...\" while Speaker B is still speaking (\"...regularly to\") is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker A (\"Sorry to cut in\"). This indicates that it was a recognized interruption rather than an accidental, prolonged overlap, and it's managed well within the conversation. The duration of the overlap is brief (Speaker A starts at 00:12, Speaker B ends at 00:13, so about 1 second of overlap), which is considered acceptable and natural. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, as turns follow each other immediately or with very short, natural gaps. The dialogue flows smoothly, reflecting a natural conversation between two individuals.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--127730",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Oh, that's excellent! Braydan is a great place for business. Have you had a chance to see much of the city? There\n[00:06 - 00:14] Speaker B: Actually, I was wondering if there are any must-see spots you would recommend? I've been here a few times before, but I'm always looking for new places.\n[00:14 - 00:24] Speaker A: Definitely! You should check out the old market square, it's a hidden gem. By the way, you mentioned you love Braydan—what is it about the city that you enjoy the most?\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker B: It's amazing! There's so much to see and do. I can't believe how big it is!\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker A: Yes, it's a really great city. There's always something going on.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B's initial query for recommendations directly addresses Speaker A's opening question about seeing the city. Speaker A then provides a relevant recommendation and naturally transitions to an open-ended question about Speaker B's enjoyment of Braydan, building on Speaker B's implicit positive sentiment. Speaker B's subsequent response (\"It's amazing! There's so much to see and do...\") directly answers Speaker A's question. Finally, Speaker A's concluding remark acknowledges and validates Speaker B's statement. The conversation flows logically, with each turn building coherently on the previous one, maintaining topic consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no extended overlaps indicated by the timestamps, as each speaker's turn ends precisely when the next one begins, or with a very brief, natural pause. Specifically, there is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn ending at [00:24] and Speaker B's turn starting at [00:25]. This is a very small and acceptable pause that contributes to natural conversation rather than hindering it. All other transitions are immediate, suggesting a smooth, responsive flow without awkward silences or interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--131224",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Librarian, do you know if there's a secret room in this library?\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: Why do you want to\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but I heard a rumor that there might be one.\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Well, rumors are often based on some truth. But I'm not sure if there is a secret room or if anyone\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker A: Do you have any idea where it might be?\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker B: No, I don't. But if there is a secret room, it's probably well hidden.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong **Response Relevance**.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker A's initial question about a \"secret room\" is met by Speaker B's relevant follow-up (\"Why do you want to\"). Speaker A then provides context (\"I heard a rumor\"), which Speaker B acknowledges. Speaker A's subsequent question about the room's location is a direct and logical progression of the topic. Speaker B's final response directly answers the question and offers a logical deduction.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The entire conversation remains focused on the central topic of a \"secret room\" in the library. There are no digressions or irrelevant statements. Both speakers actively contribute to exploring this specific topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates good **Interactional Fluency**, with only brief and generally acceptable instances of overlap and minimal pauses.\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There are no prolonged or disruptive overlaps.\n    *   At `00:04`, Speaker A briefly cuts in on Speaker B. Speaker A acknowledges this with \"Sorry to cut in,\" which indicates self-awareness and politeness, making the brief overlap less disruptive. The overlap is short (Speaker B's part is only 1 second of speech during the overlap).\n    *   At `00:14`, Speaker A immediately starts their turn as Speaker B is still speaking, but Speaker B was trailing off (\"or if anyone\"). This is more of a quick turn-take rather than a disruptive, extended overlap, and it feels natural.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no long, awkward pauses.\n    *   There is a 1-second pause between `00:08` (Speaker A's end) and `00:09` (Speaker B's start), which is a natural and brief pause, not disruptive.\n    *   Turn-taking elsewhere is prompt, contributing to a natural flow.\nThe \"brief overlaps\" and \"small pauses\" are within acceptable limits as per the criteria.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--21635",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi there! I'm Indy, the artist.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Wow, your paintings are beautiful! I'd love to learn more\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: Oh, thank you so much! I'm so glad you like them.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: Yes, I really do. Which one should I choose?\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: Well, let me show you a few of my favorites and see what you think of\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: Sorry, I just got really excited. Could you first tell me if this one with the vibrant colors is available?\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker A: Yes, it is! Here's one of my latest paintings. I love the colors in this one.\n[00:26 - 00:28] Speaker B: It's gorgeous! I'll take it.\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker A: Great! I'm so happy you like it.\n[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker B: Thank you, Indy. Your paintings are really something special.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker A introduces themselves, and Speaker B responds with a compliment relevant to Speaker A's profession.\n- Speaker B expresses interest, and Speaker A thanks them appropriately.\n- When Speaker B asks for a recommendation, Speaker A offers to show favorites, which is a logical and helpful response.\n- Speaker B's interruption is acknowledged with an apology, and Speaker A directly answers Speaker B's specific question about availability, demonstrating excellent flexibility and responsiveness.\n- The subsequent exchange regarding the purchase and mutual appreciation remains perfectly on topic and logically consistent.\nThe conversation flows naturally from introduction to inquiry, specific question, and final transaction/appreciation, with all responses building on the previous turns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits excellent fluency.\n- There are a few very brief overlaps (e.g., [00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A and [00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B), but these are only 1 second in duration. These are very short and appear natural, especially given Speaker B's stated excitement during one of the overlaps, which explains the enthusiastic interruption. These are not \"extended overlaps\" that would be considered harmful.\n- Pauses between turns are either non-existent (turns starting immediately after the previous one ends, e.g., 0:09, 0:26, 0:28, 0:31) or very brief (1 second, e.g., 0:02-0:03, 0:11-0:12, 0:20-0:21). None of these constitute \"long pauses\" that would disrupt the flow.\nThe conversation feels dynamic and natural, with appropriate pacing and turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--66451",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I can't believe you're gone. I feel like I'm in a fog, like\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: I know, it's hard to accept. But at least we got to say goodbye.\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: Yeah. I'm just going to miss you so much. You were my best friend.\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B: And you were mine. I'm going to miss you too, Slater. But I'll be watching over you from the other side, even\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: Sorry to cut you off, but how will I know you're really there? I mean, how can I feel your presence?\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker B: You may not always feel it, but I'll be there in the little things—like when you hear our favorite song or see something that reminds you of me.\n[00:28 - 00:36] Speaker A: That's not really comforting right now. But maybe someday it will be. Thanks for being with me, Julia. Even till the end.\n[00:36 - 00:42] Speaker B: Of course, Slater. I would never leave you alone during something like this. You're strong, though. You'll get through this.\n[00:42 - 00:47] Speaker A: I don't know if I can be strong without you, Julia. But I'll try. For you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement, maintaining a coherent emotional and thematic thread of grief, reassurance, and enduring connection.\n- Speaker B's initial response (\"I know, it's hard to accept. But at least we got to say goodbye.\") is a direct empathetic reply to Speaker A's expression of loss.\n- Speaker A's follow-up (\"I'm just going to miss you so much. You were my best friend.\") reinforces the theme of loss and the depth of their relationship.\n- Speaker B's reciprocal sentiment and introduction of \"watching over you from the other side\" sets up Speaker A's subsequent question about presence.\n- Speaker A's \"Sorry to cut you off, but how will I know you're really there?\" is a perfectly logical and emotionally driven follow-up to Speaker B's \"other side\" comment, demonstrating a need for tangible reassurance.\n- Speaker B's explanation about \"little things\" directly answers A's question.\n- Speaker A's admission that it's \"not really comforting right now\" is a realistic and relevant reaction to the reassurance offered, demonstrating emotional honesty.\n- The closing remarks about strength and trying \"for you\" continue the theme of support and acceptance.\nThe conversation flows naturally and logically, with no instances of off-topic remarks or inconsistent responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent fluency.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns; most transitions are immediate or very brief (1 second gap between [00:04] and [00:07], and [00:11] and [00:12]), which is natural.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - [00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B overlaps with [00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A for 1 second ([00:03 - 00:04]). This is a very minor, acceptable overlap, common in natural conversation.\n    - [00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A overlaps with [00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B for 2 seconds ([00:15 - 00:17]). Crucially, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to cut you off,\" which contextualizes and justifies the overlap. It's not a disruptive or harmful overlap but rather indicates an urgent, pressing question from Speaker A, enhancing the realism of the interaction.\nThe explicit acknowledgement of the interruption and the very brief nature of the other overlap prevent them from being considered \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" to the flow of conversation. The dialogue feels natural and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--541",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi! What are you doing?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm looking for some new clothes, how about you?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm shopping for clothes too! I was wondering if you have any suggestions.\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B: Yeah, what kind of clothes are you looking for?\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker A: Oh, I was thinking about getting some casual outfits. Do you have any favorite stores?\n[00:16 - 00:25] Speaker B: Casual outfits are great! I personally love checking out local boutiques for unique pieces. Have you tried looking online for deals or\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: Online shopping is convenient, but I sometimes worry about the fit and quality. Do you have any tips for that?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi! What are you doing?** - A natural opening question.\n2.  **[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm looking for some new clothes, how about you?** - B directly answers A's question and then reciprocates, maintaining the conversational flow.\n3.  **[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm shopping for clothes too! I was wondering if you have any suggestions.** - A builds on B's response, confirming shared activity and then logically asks for suggestions related to the activity.\n4.  **[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B: Yeah, what kind of clothes are you looking for?** - B acknowledges A's request and asks for necessary clarification before offering suggestions, which is highly logical.\n5.  **[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker A: Oh, I was thinking about getting some casual outfits. Do you have any favorite stores?** - A provides the requested clarification and then refines the request for suggestions to specific \"favorite stores,\" maintaining topic coherence.\n6.  **[00:16 - 00:25] Speaker B: Casual outfits are great! I personally love checking out local boutiques for unique pieces. Have you tried looking online for deals or** - B affirms A's choice, offers a specific suggestion (\"local boutiques\"), and then introduces another relevant option (\"online shopping\"), showing good conversational contribution.\n7.  **[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: Online shopping is convenient, but I sometimes worry about the fit and quality. Do you have any tips for that?** - A directly responds to B's mention of \"online shopping,\" expresses a common concern, and then asks for advice related to that concern, demonstrating excellent topic coherence and progression.\n\nThroughout the dialogue, each speaker's turn is directly related to the previous one, the topic of clothes shopping is consistently maintained, and the conversation progresses logically from general inquiry to specific preferences and concerns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits natural interactional fluency with no disruptive long pauses or extended overlaps.\n1.  **Turn-taking:** Speakers take turns promptly, indicating a natural pace of conversation. There are no noticeable silences that would constitute \"long pauses.\"\n2.  **Overlaps:**\n    *   **[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker A** starts speaking at 00:11 while **[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B** is still speaking. This is a 1-second overlap (00:11-00:12).\n    *   **[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A** starts speaking at 00:24 while **[00:16 - 00:25] Speaker B** is still speaking. This is also a 1-second overlap (00:24-00:25).\nAs per the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" Both overlaps are very brief (1 second) and appear to be natural instances of anticipatory turn-taking or a speaker jumping in at the end of another's thought, rather than extended or disruptive overlapping turns. They do not hinder understanding or flow. The conversation feels natural and dynamic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--457",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I've been thinking about getting a vegetable garden! Do you have any recommendations for plants?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: What are your preferences - vegetables, flowers, fruits, etc.?\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: I'm thinking veggies since I like eating them! My husband and I really like kale and spinach.\n[00:15 - 00:24] Speaker B: You should definitely grow kale and spinach! They're very popular among health-conscious individuals. I also recommend growing tomatoes. They can be used as a base for\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I'm curious, do tomatoes require a lot of maintenance compared to kale and spinach?\n[00:30 - 00:42] Speaker B: Tomatoes do need a bit more care, like staking and regular watering. But I was going to mention that they can be used as a garnish or you can make an outstanding pizza with them. Also, have you considered adding some\n[00:41 - 00:47] Speaker A: Oh, making pizza with homegrown tomatoes sounds amazing! But you were saying, have I considered what?\n[00:47 - 00:53] Speaker B: Have you considered growing herbs like basil or mint? They complement vegetables well and are easy to grow.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance throughout.\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:09] Initial Request and Clarification:** Speaker A asks for plant recommendations, and Speaker B logically responds by asking for preferences to narrow down the options. This is a coherent and relevant exchange.\n2.  **[00:09 - 00:15] Specific Preference:** Speaker A provides specific preferences (vegetables, kale, spinach), directly answering Speaker B's clarifying question.\n3.  **[00:15 - 00:24] Recommendation and Expansion:** Speaker B affirms A's choices and introduces a new relevant recommendation (tomatoes), providing context for its use. This is logically consistent with giving recommendations.\n4.  **[00:23 - 00:30] Clarifying Question:** Speaker A's interruption to ask about tomato maintenance is highly relevant. It directly follows B's mention of tomatoes and addresses a practical concern for a new gardener. The apology indicates awareness of the conversational flow.\n5.  **[00:30 - 00:42] Addressing Question and Resuming:** Speaker B first answers A's maintenance question, then logically attempts to resume their previous point about tomato uses. This shows both responsiveness to the interruption and an attempt to maintain the original thread.\n6.  **[00:41 - 00:47] Engagement and Prompt:** Speaker A expresses enthusiasm about the pizza idea (engaging with B's point) and then explicitly prompts Speaker B to continue their interrupted thought. This demonstrates active listening and a desire to maintain topic coherence.\n7.  **[00:47 - 00:53] Completing Thought:** Speaker B directly picks up where they left off, introducing herbs, which logically extends the conversation about garden plants.\n\nOverall, the conversation maintains strong topic coherence, and each speaker's response is logically consistent with the preceding turn, even with brief interruptions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is natural and appropriate.\n1.  **No Long Pauses:** There are no instances of prolonged silence between speaker turns, indicating a smooth conversational flow.\n2.  **Brief, Acceptable Overlaps:** There are two instances of overlaps:\n    *   **[00:23 - 00:24] Speaker A interrupts Speaker B:** This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to jump in\") and asks a clarifying question. This type of brief, polite interruption for clarification is common and acceptable in natural conversation, not harmful.\n    *   **[00:41 - 00:42] Speaker A interrupts Speaker B again:** This is also a 1-second overlap. Speaker A acknowledges Speaker B's point (\"Oh, making pizza with homegrown tomatoes sounds amazing!\") and then explicitly prompts Speaker B to complete their previous thought (\"But you were saying, have I considered what?\"). This demonstrates active engagement and a desire to help the speaker continue, rather than disrupt.\n\nThe prompt states that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these overlaps perfectly fit that description. They do not hinder the communication or create awkwardness; rather, they contribute to a dynamic and engaged exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--66367",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey! What are you doing?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Mind your own business, this\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker A: I can't just stand by and watch you pick on this kid. It's not right.\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker B: So what are you going to do about it, huh?\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: I'll do whatever it takes to stop you. Now back off before\n[00:12 - 00:13] Speaker B: Ha! Like we're scared of you!\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker A: Fine. Don't say I didn't warn you.\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker B: Aaah! Stop! Please!\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker A: That'll teach you to pick on someone who can't defend themselves. Now get out of here before I call the cops.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent throughout the escalating conflict. Speaker A's initial intervention is met with defiance by Speaker B, leading to a natural back-and-forth of threats and challenges. Speaker A's decisive action is implied by Speaker B's sudden plea for mercy, which is a logical consequence of the established tension. Finally, Speaker A's concluding statement reinforces the lesson and resolves the immediate conflict, maintaining perfect topic coherence from start to finish. There are no instances where a speaker's turn feels out of place or illogical given the dramatic context.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is one brief overlap between Speaker B and Speaker A from [00:02 - 00:03] (1 second), which falls under the category of acceptable \"brief overlaps\" as per the evaluation criteria. The pauses between turns are generally 1 second or less, such as [00:06 - 00:07], [00:08 - 00:09], [00:13 - 00:14], and [00:16 - 00:17]. These are considered \"small pauses\" and contribute to a natural, albeit intense, conversational flow. There are no \"prolonged pauses\" or \"extended overlaps\" that would harm the fluency. The pacing is appropriate for a confrontational and rapidly evolving dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--414",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What's on the menu tonight?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: I was thinking about making steak.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: That sounds good. Do you need any extra ingredients?\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: No, but there are a lot of vegetables in the fridge that need to be used\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: Oh, I just remembered, do we have any potatoes? They would go great with steak.\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: Yes, we do. But as I was saying, there are a lot of vegetables in the fridge that need to be used up.\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker A: Alright. Have you ever prepared a steak before?\n[00:24 - 00:25] Speaker B: No, but I heard it's not too\n[00:25 - 00:33] Speaker A: Easy? I think it depends on the cut and how you cook it. Maybe we should look up a recipe to make sure we get it right.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B consistently responds to Speaker A's inquiries about dinner plans, first suggesting steak, then addressing ingredient needs, and finally discussing their experience with cooking steak.\n- Speaker A's questions and statements logically follow Speaker B's responses, whether asking about ingredients, suggesting additions (potatoes), or inquiring about experience.\n- The conversation maintains a clear focus on the dinner preparation, specifically steak and potential sides. Speaker B's repeated mention of \"vegetables that need to be used up\" is a relevant sub-theme that they try to integrate into the main topic.\n- Speaker A's completion of Speaker B's sentence (\"Easy?\") is a common and coherent conversational move, showing active listening and understanding.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the gaps are typically 1 second or less, which is natural for conversation.\n- There are two brief overlaps:\n    - `[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A` starts while `[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B` is still speaking. This is a 1-second overlap (00:10-00:11).\n    - `[00:25 - 00:33] Speaker A` starts immediately as `[00:24 - 00:25] Speaker B` finishes, indicating a rapid turn-taking or sentence completion.\n- These overlaps are brief and natural, common in dynamic conversations where speakers anticipate or interject. They are not \"extended overlaps\" as described in the criteria that would be harmful. The conversation flows smoothly without awkward silences or disruptive interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--276",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Can I give you a lift home, Mrs. Word?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: That is very kind of you, Mr. Lee. Thank you.\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: Could you hold my umbrella when I get my keys out, I don't\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker B: Oh, I just remembered—do you need to stop by the pharmacy on the way home? I know you mentioned needing to pick up a prescription earlier.\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker A: No, I already took care of that. But I was asking if you could hold my umbrella while I get my keys out, please?\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker B: Of course. It's a terrible night, isn't it?\n[00:25 - 00:28] Speaker A: Dreadful. There, the door is open now.\n[00:28 - 00:29] Speaker B: Thank you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a relevant exchange. However, at [00:08 - 00:15], Speaker B interjects with a question about the pharmacy, which is a significant topic shift and not directly relevant to Speaker A's ongoing request about holding an umbrella. This forces Speaker A to explicitly re-state their request and address the relevance issue at [00:15 - 00:22]. While Speaker B eventually addresses the umbrella request, the initial irrelevance disrupts the flow and logical consistency of the conversation. Speaker B's comment about the terrible night at [00:22 - 00:25] is a minor, natural conversational aside and doesn't significantly impact relevance. The primary issue is the abrupt and irrelevant topic shift and interruption by Speaker B.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is a clear and extended overlap between Speaker A's turn at [00:05 - 00:09] and Speaker B's turn at [00:08 - 00:15]. Speaker B begins speaking at 00:08 while Speaker A is still in the middle of a sentence, preventing Speaker A from completing their thought (\"I don't...\"). This is a disruptive and prolonged overlap, indicating poor interactional fluency. There are no noticeable long pauses between turns. The main issue is the significant overlap and interruption.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--456",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Good afternoon, sir. Can I help you?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'd like a beef-burger, a French fries and a milk shake, please.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: What flavor would you prefer, sir?\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: I'm not quite sure. What do you usually recommend\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I just wanted to mention that our chocolate flavor is quite popular today. Would you like to try that?\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker B: Hmm, chocolate does sound good, but I think I'll stick with the banana flavor.\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker A: Great choice! Anything else, sir?\n[00:26 - 00:28] Speaker B: No, thanks. That will be all.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, contributing coherently to the conversation's topic of ordering food.\n- Speaker B's initial order is a direct response to Speaker A's offer of help.\n- Speaker A's question about flavor directly addresses the \"milkshake\" item in Speaker B's order.\n- Speaker B's uncertainty and request for a recommendation are relevant replies to the flavor question.\n- Speaker A's recommendation of chocolate flavor is a direct and helpful answer to Speaker B's request for a recommendation. The \"Sorry to interrupt\" phrase, while seemingly odd at first glance given the text, is contextually appropriate as per the timing of the overlap, indicating awareness of the interruption and maintaining politeness.\n- Speaker B's decision to go with banana flavor after considering chocolate shows logical progression in the decision-making process.\n- Speaker A's \"Great choice! Anything else?\" is a standard and relevant follow-up in a customer service interaction.\n- Speaker B's final \"No, thanks. That will be all\" appropriately concludes the ordering process.\nThe topic coherence is maintained throughout, staying focused on the food order.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction displays excellent interactional fluency.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns that would disrupt the flow of the conversation. The transitions between turns are smooth and natural.\n- There is one instance of an overlap between [00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B and [00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A. Speaker A starts speaking at 00:10 while Speaker B finishes at 00:11, creating a 1-second overlap. This is a brief overlap. Crucially, Speaker A acknowledges this overlap by saying \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and politeness, making the interaction feel very natural and not disruptive. As per the criteria, brief overlaps are acceptable, and this one is handled gracefully.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking contribute to a very natural and fluent conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--132762",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what are you doing?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Just playing with this ball. It's really fun!\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: Yeah, it looks like it. I'm Madina, by the way, I\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but I just realized I didn't ask—do you live nearby?\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker A: Yeah, I do. I was about to say, I'm Madina, by the way.\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker B: I'm Juston. Nice to meet you!\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker A: Likewise! So, do you come here often?\n[00:25 - 00:28] Speaker B: Yeah, pretty much every day. It's a great place to unwind after\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker A: Oh, every day? That's awesome. I'm new to the area, so I'm still figuring out the good spots.\n[00:35 - 00:38] Speaker B: Well, if you like playing with balls, this is definitely the place for you!\n[00:39 - 00:42] Speaker A: Haha, yeah. I'll have to remember that. Thanks for the tip!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B answers A's initial question directly. Speaker A attempts an introduction, which is then continued after a brief interruption. Speaker B responds to the introduction. Speaker A asks a new question to continue the conversation, and Speaker B answers it directly. Speaker A then ties B's answer back to their own situation (being new to the area). Finally, Speaker B offers a lighthearted suggestion relevant to their initial activity, which Speaker A acknowledges.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The conversation flows naturally from an initial inquiry about an activity, to introductions, to discussing presence in the location, and then a playful wrap-up. There are no abrupt, unexplained topic shifts. Even when Speaker B cuts in to ask about living nearby, it's a natural pivot for a new acquaintance and is acknowledged (\"Sorry to cut in\"). The re-attempt at introduction by Speaker A reinforces coherence. The overall theme of getting to know each other in a shared space is consistently maintained.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There are two instances of overlaps:\n    *   `[0:09 - 0:12] Speaker B` overlaps with `[0:04 - 0:10] Speaker A`. The overlap duration is approximately 1 second (from 0:09 to 0:10). Speaker B explicitly apologizes (\"Sorry to cut in\"), making this a natural and acknowledged interruption rather than a disruptive one.\n    *   `[0:27 - 0:34] Speaker A` overlaps with `[0:25 - 0:28] Speaker B`. The overlap duration is approximately 1 second (from 0:27 to 0:28). Speaker A's overlap is an immediate reaction (\"Oh, every day?\"), which is common and natural in spontaneous conversation, indicating engagement.\n    Both overlaps are brief (1 second) and do not appear to be prolonged or harmful; they contribute to the natural flow of conversation as \"brief overlaps\" are acceptable.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The short gaps (e.g., 0:12-0:13, 0:21-0:22) are minimal (1 second) and represent natural conversational rhythm, not disruptive silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--85738",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: The capital of Louisiana is Baton Rouge.\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: Really? I had no idea. I always just assumed it was New Orle ans because\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker A: Nope, Baton Rouge is the official capital. But I can see why you'd think that—New Orleans is just the largest city in the state.\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker B: Interesting. I'm definitely going to have to look that up when I get home. Thanks for enlightening me, Orrin!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn is a logical and coherent response to the preceding one.\n*   Speaker A's initial statement provides a fact.\n*   Speaker B's reaction (\"Really? I had no idea. I always just assumed it was New Orleans because\") directly addresses Speaker A's fact, expressing surprise and a common misconception, setting up Speaker A for clarification.\n*   Speaker A's subsequent response (\"Nope, Baton Rouge is the official capital. But I can see why you'd think that—New Orleans is just the largest city in the state.\") directly corrects Speaker B's assumption and provides a very relevant and logical explanation for the confusion, demonstrating understanding of Speaker B's perspective.\n*   Speaker B's final remark (\"Interesting. I'm definitely going to have to look that up when I get home. Thanks for enlightening me, Orrin!\") acknowledges the new information, expresses intent to verify, and thanks Speaker A, providing a natural conclusion to the topic.\nThe topic coherence is maintained throughout, focusing exclusively on the capital of Louisiana and related common misconceptions. There are no digressions or irrelevant statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural and appropriate.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The conversation flows smoothly from one speaker to the next.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is a brief overlap between Speaker B ([00:03 - 00:08]) and Speaker A ([00:07 - 00:15]). Speaker A begins speaking at 00:07, while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:08. This results in a 1-second overlap. This is a minor, \"brief overlap\" as described in the instructions, and is very common in natural conversation, often indicating a quick reaction or clarification, rather than a harmful interruption. Speaker A's \"Nope\" directly addresses Speaker B's implied statement (that New Orleans is the capital) or the reason Speaker B was about to give. This brief overlap makes the dialogue feel more dynamic and realistic, rather than artificial or robotic. It does not hinder understanding or flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--18006",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I can't believe how tired I am from just dusting and mopping. I feel like I've been doing this all day.\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: You probably have been. Physical activity can be tiring, especially if you're not used to doing it\n[00:10 - 00:18] Speaker A: Speaking of which, do you think it gets easier the more you do it? Because right now, I can't imagine doing this every day.\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker B: It does get easier with time, but I think some people actually enjoy manual labor. It can be therapeutic for both the\n[00:24 - 00:33] Speaker A: Oh, I get that. But honestly, I'd rather stick to mental tasks. I just feel more fulfilled when I'm using my brain than when I'm doing physical work.\n[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker B: That's perfectly understandable. We all have different preferences.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's first response at [00:06 - 00:11] directly addresses Speaker A's complaint about tiredness, validating it and offering a logical explanation.\n- Speaker A's question at [00:10 - 00:18] naturally follows from the discussion of physical exertion, exploring the long-term aspect of such work.\n- Speaker B's response at [00:18 - 00:25] directly answers Speaker A's question and smoothly transitions to a related point about the therapeutic nature of manual labor.\n- Speaker A's turn at [00:24 - 00:33] acknowledges Speaker B's point (\"Oh, I get that\") but then articulates a contrasting personal preference, maintaining the theme of different approaches to work.\n- Speaker B's final response at [00:33 - 00:37] offers a validating and conclusive statement, reinforcing the idea of individual preferences.\nThe conversation flows logically, with each turn building upon the previous one and maintaining a clear topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The gaps are minimal (e.g., 1 second between A's first turn and B's response).\n- There are brief overlaps detected (e.g., Speaker A at [00:10 - 00:18] starting while Speaker B is still speaking at [00:06 - 00:11], or Speaker A at [00:24 - 00:33] overlapping with Speaker B at [00:18 - 00:25]). These overlaps are short (around 1 second) and appear to be natural instances of collaborative turn-taking rather than disruptive interruptions. They suggest active listening and engagement, where one speaker begins to respond as the other is concluding their thought. There are no extended or disruptive overlaps that impede understanding or the flow of conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--667",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm trying to decide if I should pursue this career path. Is it something you feel passionate about?\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: For the most part! I'm going to start my master's in environmental science.\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: That's great! I've been interested in climate change. What other career path did you have in mind?\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker B: I was thinking about working in an oil or gas company.\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A: Haha - those aren't necessarily bad options! What was your first major in college?\n[00:25 - 00:26] Speaker B: Engineering!\n[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker A: Cool - what did you specialize in\n[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker B: Sorry, just curious, how do you feel about the ethical implications of working in the oil and gas industry?\n[00:34 - 00:42] Speaker A: That's a good question. It's definitely something I've thought about. I haven't mentioned our use of automation tools yet which could\n[00:41 - 00:48] Speaker B: Automation tools are certainly important, but I am more concerned about whether our team's current skills can match the requirements of these tools.\n[00:48 - 00:58] Speaker A: This plan does need more funding, but we have also considered some additional funding sources. However, I haven't mentioned our use of automation tools yet.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts quite coherently. Speaker A asks about career path, B responds with environmental science, A builds on it, and B brings up oil/gas. Speaker A then shifts to B's college major, which is still a logical progression relating to career background.\n\nHowever, the relevance significantly degrades from [00:28].\n1.  **[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker B's turn:** Speaker B abruptly shifts the topic from \"engineering specialization\" back to \"ethical implications of working in the oil and gas industry.\" While oil/gas was mentioned earlier, the abruptness and the \"Sorry, just curious\" indicate a non-sequitur or an interruption to pursue a different line of thought, breaking the current topic coherence.\n2.  **[00:34 - 00:42] Speaker A's turn:** This is a major breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A acknowledges B's question (\"That's a good question. It's definitely something I've thought about.\") but then completely abandons it to introduce a brand new, seemingly pre-scripted topic about \"automation tools\" that has no connection to anything previously discussed (career paths, environmental science, oil/gas ethics, engineering). This is a severe deviation and indicates Speaker A is not truly engaging with Speaker B's question but rather pushing an unrelated agenda.\n3.  **[00:48 - 00:58] Speaker A's turn:** After Speaker B has already responded to Speaker A's sudden introduction of \"automation tools\" (at 0:41), Speaker A then *repeats* the phrase \"However, I haven't mentioned our use of automation tools yet.\" This repetition demonstrates a significant lack of listening and engagement. Speaker A seems to be operating on a pre-set agenda, ignoring the fact that the topic *was* just mentioned and discussed. This shows a complete breakdown in logical consistency and reactive conversation.\n\nOverall, the conversation's relevance quickly deteriorates due to abrupt, unmotivated topic shifts by Speaker A, and Speaker A's failure to acknowledge previous turns, leading to a disconnected and agenda-driven interaction. Speaker B also initiates an abrupt shift, but A's shifts are more problematic due to their irrelevance and repetition.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a relatively fast pace with no long pauses, which generally contributes to fluency. However, there are two brief overlaps:\n1.  **[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker A: Cool - what did you specialize in** overlapping with **[00:28 - 00:34] Speaker B: Sorry, just curious, how do you feel about...** : There is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B's \"Sorry, just curious\" explicitly indicates an interruption and an awareness of changing the subject, suggesting this was not a smooth co-construction but a deliberate interjection.\n2.  **[00:34 - 00:42] Speaker A: ...automation tools yet which could** overlapping with **[00:41 - 00:48] Speaker B: Automation tools are certainly important...**: There is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B starts speaking just as Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This is a brief overlap, and while not prolonged, it suggests speakers are not fully waiting for the other to complete their thought before jumping in.\n\nWhile these overlaps are brief and not \"extended,\" the first one, combined with the \"Sorry, just curious\" and the topic shift, slightly detracts from the seamless flow. However, the prompt states \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" so these are not the primary issues. The main fluency problem here is more about the logical flow of ideas (relevance) rather than strictly timing-based fluency issues like long pauses or prolonged overlaps. Since there are no long pauses or prolonged overlaps, the interactional timing itself is not severely impacted.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--143822",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Doctor, I don't know what's happening to me. I feel like I'm losing control of my body, like\n[00:05 - 00:16] Speaker B: Georgiana, it sounds like you're experiencing a seizure. Seizures are caused by sudden, abnormal electrical activity in the brain. They can cause muscle spasms and loss of consciousness, and\n[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker A: Wait, so you're saying this could be why I suddenly blacked out last week? I didn't understand what was happening at the time.\n[00:24 - 00:35] Speaker B: Yes, that could very well be the reason. There are medications we can prescribe that can help reduce the frequency and severity of seizures. We will also need to monitor your condition closely to make sure that your seizures are under control.\n[00:36 - 00:40] Speaker A: I'm scared, Doctor. What if I can't control my seizures?\n[00:40 - 00:46] Speaker B: Georgiana, you will be seizure-free with the right treatment. We will be here to support you every step of the way.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency.\n*   Speaker A's initial statement (00:00-00:05) clearly describes their symptoms and distress.\n*   Speaker B's response (00:05-00:16) immediately offers a relevant medical diagnosis (seizure) and a brief explanation, directly addressing Speaker A's concerns.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up question (00:15-00:23) connects the diagnosis to a past personal experience (\"blacked out last week\"), demonstrating logical understanding and seeking confirmation.\n*   Speaker B (00:24-00:35) confirms the link and smoothly transitions to discussing potential treatment and monitoring, which is a natural progression in a doctor-patient interaction.\n*   Speaker A's expression of fear (00:36-00:40) is a highly relevant emotional response to receiving a medical diagnosis.\n*   Speaker B's final reassurance (00:40-00:46) directly addresses Speaker A's fear and provides support.\nThe topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on Speaker A's condition, diagnosis, and emotional response. Each turn builds logically on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good, demonstrating natural conversational pacing with only minor, acceptable variations.\n*   [00:05] Speaker B begins immediately after Speaker A finishes, indicating a smooth transition.\n*   [00:15 - 00:16] There is a brief overlap of 1 second where Speaker A starts speaking (00:15) before Speaker B finishes (00:16). This is a very short and natural overlap, suggesting an eager or anxious interjection from Speaker A, which is common and acceptable in conversations, especially when discussing a serious medical condition. It does not disrupt the flow.\n*   [00:23 - 00:24] There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn ending and Speaker B's turn starting. This is a small, natural pause.\n*   [00:35 - 00:36] There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn ending and Speaker A's turn starting. This is also a small, natural pause.\n*   [00:40] Speaker B begins immediately after Speaker A finishes, indicating another smooth transition.\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would impede the natural flow or understanding of the conversation. The brief overlap and small pauses contribute to the realism of the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--115046",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: It's nice to finally meet you. I feel like I've known you forever.\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: I know, it feels like we've been friends for a long time. But I'm glad we finally had the chance to meet in person, after\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I just have to ask—what took us so long to actually meet face-to-face?\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: That's a good question! I guess life just kept getting in the way. But I've been watching you and I'm very proud of the person you've become.\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker A: That's really nice of you to say. I don't know if I would have made it this far without your guidance\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker B: Without what? Your own determination? Because I think that's what really got you here.\n[00:33 - 00:40] Speaker A: You're right, but your support definitely played a big part too. Thanks. I appreciate that more than you know.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the established context of long-term familiarity and a recent first meeting.\n- Speaker A initiates with a warm, familiar greeting, which Speaker B reciprocates naturally.\n- Speaker A's interruption to ask \"what took us so long\" directly addresses Speaker B's unfinished thought (\"after...\") and the established topic.\n- Speaker B's response provides a plausible reason (\"life just kept getting in the way\") and seamlessly transitions to a personal compliment, which is still highly relevant to their unique relationship.\n- Speaker A acknowledges the compliment and attributes their success to B's guidance, maintaining the personal and supportive tone.\n- Speaker B's challenge (\"Without what? Your own determination?\") is a natural conversational move, humbly redirecting credit and adding a layer of depth to their relationship.\n- Speaker A accepts the correction while still appreciating B's support, bringing the exchange to a grateful close.\nThe conversation remains coherent and consistent throughout, demonstrating a strong understanding between the speakers.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent fluency.\n- There are two brief overlaps:\n    - [00:09 - 00:10]: Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B for 1 second. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the overlap polite and interactionally appropriate, indicating eagerness to participate.\n    - [00:28 - 00:29]: Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A for 1 second. This is a very brief interjection, a quick follow-up question (\"Without what?\"), which is common in natural, engaged conversation and does not disrupt the flow or clarity.\n- There are several small pauses (approximately 1 second each) between turns: [00:15 - 00:16], [00:22 - 00:23], [00:32 - 00:33]. These are very brief and natural, allowing for turn-taking without creating awkward silences or indicating hesitation.\nAccording to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and the instances here fall into this category. The dialogue flows smoothly, feeling natural and unforced.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--71108",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I'm not sure what you're asking me.\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: I guess I'm just wondering if you ever think about getting married, or if you've given up on that idea or if\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: I haven't given up on the idea completely, but—\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but do you feel like the pressure to settle down is coming more from society or from yourself?\n[00:16 - 00:30] Speaker A: Honestly, it's a bit of both. Society does have its expectations, but I also have my own internal clock that's ticking. But as I was saying, I'm not sure it's something that's going to happen for me anytime soon because I\n[00:29 - 00:30] Speaker B: Why do you say that?\n[00:31 - 00:44] Speaker A: I don't know, it just seems like it's harder and harder to find someone these days who wants to settle down. Everyone seems so busy with their careers and their own lives that they don't really have time for a serious relationship.\n[00:45 - 00:51] Speaker B: That's true, but there are still people out there who are looking for love. You just have to keep looking until you find the right person.\n[00:51 - 00:59] Speaker A: I guess you're right. I haven't given up hope completely, but it's just not something that's at the forefront of my mind right now since I'm\n[00:59 - 01:04] Speaker B: Well, if you ever do decide to get married, let me know. I'd be happy to help you plan the wedding!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate excellent logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial question is clarified, and Speaker A's response is direct. Speaker B's subsequent \"Sorry to cut in\" question, while an interruption, is highly relevant to the ongoing topic of marriage and societal/personal pressure, and Speaker A addresses it directly. Speaker B's \"Why do you say that?\" effectively prompts Speaker A to elaborate on their previous statement, maintaining the flow. All subsequent turns build logically on the preceding statements, with Speaker B offering encouragement and Speaker A acknowledging it, leading to a natural conclusion. The conversation stays consistently on the topic of marriage, relationships, and personal feelings about settling down.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good. There are a few instances of brief overlaps (e.g., Speaker A starting at [00:06] while Speaker B finishes at [00:07], and Speaker B starting at [00:29] while Speaker A finishes at [00:30]) and small pauses (e.g., 1-second gaps between [00:09] and [00:10], [00:30] and [00:31], [00:44] and [00:45]). However, these are precisely the \"small pauses and brief overlaps\" that the prompt indicates are acceptable and contribute to a natural conversation flow. Crucially, there are no \"extended overlaps\" or \"long pauses\" that would be harmful or disrupt the interaction. The pacing feels natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--498",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Excuse me, Alice, I've never used this place before. Can you tell me how to use the machines?\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: What do you mean? These are the washing machines. Those big things over there are the dryers.\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker A: I see. Do the machines have soap in them already,\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but do you have your own soap? You'll need to add it yourself.\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker A: No, I don't have soap.\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker B: Well, you can buy some over there.\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker A: Thanks. OK, I have my soap.\n[00:25 - 00:28] Speaker B: My god, you really bought a lot. Why do you need so much soap?\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker A: Oh, I thought the more soap, the cleaner the clothes would be. But wait, you were saying something about using too much soap?\n[00:34 - 00:42] Speaker B: Yes, exactly. The machines won't be able to remove all that soap completely. On the contrary, too many bubbles trapped dirt, allowing bacteria to build up.\n[00:43 - 00:47] Speaker A: Oh, I guess I didn't know. I have never washed clothes before.\n[00:47 - 00:50] Speaker B: What? Did you say you never wash clothes before?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence throughout the conversation.\n- Speaker A initiates with a clear request for help, and Speaker B responds by clarifying and providing initial instructions.\n- The conversation then naturally progresses to the topic of soap, with Speaker A asking about it and Speaker B providing necessary information and guidance on where to obtain it.\n- Speaker B's comment about the amount of soap leads to an informative exchange about the correct usage, and Speaker A's subsequent revelation explains their prior misunderstanding.\n- Speaker B's final question is a natural reaction to this surprising revelation, maintaining the conversational flow.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant information, misunderstandings, or deviations from the central theme of using laundry machines. The progression of information and questions/answers is logical and consistent.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is also excellent. The dialogue features natural conversational dynamics with appropriate turn-taking and pacing.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - [00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence (A ends at 00:15). This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to cut in,\" which makes the overlap feel very natural and polite, indicating active listening and a desire to contribute quickly.\n    - [00:27 - 00:34] Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing their sentence (B ends at 00:28). This is also a 1-second overlap. This overlap signifies Speaker A's quick realization and eagerness to connect their thought to Speaker B's implicit warning, contributing to a dynamic flow.\n- Both overlaps are brief (1 second) and contribute to the naturalness of the conversation rather than hindering it. They are not \"prolonged overlapping turns.\"\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The responses are prompt, contributing to a fluid and engaging exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--363",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Does your country export a lot of natural resources?\n[00:03 - 00:11] Speaker B: We export some coal to European countries, but our biggest exports is copper, which we export to Europe, North America, and other parts\n[00:09 - 00:17] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I was wondering—how do these exports impact your country's economy? Is copper the main driver?\n[00:18 - 00:26] Speaker B: Definitely, copper is a major contributor to our economy. But I should mention that we also export copper to China. Which resources do you have to import?\n[00:26 - 00:35] Speaker A: We import a little oil from Venezuela, but we are fairly self-sufficient. We import some iron and a lot of aluminium from neighboring countries.\n[00:35 - 00:39] Speaker B: I heard that your country recently discovered deposits of precious stone.\n[00:40 - 00:48] Speaker A: Yes, that's right. So far, only small deposits have been found. Engineers in my country are focusing on drilling for more extensive\n[00:47 - 00:51] Speaker B: Speaking of drilling, is there any concern about the environmental impact of these activities?\n[00:52 - 01:05] Speaker A: Yes, environmental concerns are definitely on the table, but I was going to say that the engineers are focusing on drilling for oil. The government is keen to exploit our natural resources to get money to improve our country.\n[01:05 - 01:10] Speaker B: If your government invests in your country's infrastructure, it will be money well spent.\n[01:11 - 01:16] Speaker A: Yes. We need to put the money into long-term projects rather than wasting it on short-term ones.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance throughout. Speakers consistently respond directly to questions asked by the other participant. For example, Speaker B's initial response (0:03) directly answers Speaker A's question about exports. Speaker A's follow-up question (0:09) logically builds on Speaker B's mention of copper. Topic coherence is maintained with natural transitions; for instance, Speaker B transitions from discussing their country's exports to asking about Speaker A's imports (0:24), which is a related economic topic. Similarly, Speaker B's \"Speaking of drilling\" (0:47) seamlessly shifts the focus to environmental impact, using a term from Speaker A's incomplete sentence. A strong indicator of logical consistency is Speaker A's response at 0:52, where they acknowledge the interruption (\"but I was going to say...\") before completing their original thought, demonstrating a clear memory of the conversation's trajectory and an ability to integrate it naturally. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or abrupt, illogical shifts, making the conversation very coherent and easy to follow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is highly natural and appropriate. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  **[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B:** This is a 2-second overlap where Speaker A starts speaking (\"Sorry to jump in...\") before Speaker B finishes their sentence. Speaker A's explicit apology (\"Sorry to jump in\") mitigates any potential disruptiveness, making it a polite and natural interjection for clarification or follow-up, typical in fluent conversation.\n2.  **[00:47 - 00:51] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A:** This is a 1-second overlap where Speaker B starts with \"Speaking of drilling...\" while Speaker A is still speaking. This is a common conversational device (topic chaining or linking) where a speaker quickly jumps in to connect to the previous utterance, indicating active listening and engagement rather than an aimless interruption.\n\nNeither of these overlaps is prolonged or disruptive; they are brief and serve functional purposes within the conversation, contributing to its natural flow rather than hindering it.\nAll pauses between speaker turns are very short (typically 0-1 second), indicating immediate engagement and smooth turn-taking. There are no long pauses that would suggest hesitation, disengagement, or difficulty in generating responses. The conversation progresses at a natural and consistent pace.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--5155",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, do you want to chat for a bit? I'm starting to get pretty tired of\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Sure, I'd love to chat! What's on your mind?\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: Well, I don't know. What do you think?\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: Hmm...well, what do you like to do for fun?\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: I like to read and write. And I love learning new things. So I'm always looking for new information to expand my\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker B: Oh, that sounds just like me! What kind of books do you usually read?\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker A: Mostly fiction, but I also enjoy non-fiction, especially when it's about science or history.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate high relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's invitation to chat and then prompts for a topic. When Speaker A defers, Speaker B skillfully pivots to a new, general topic (\"What do you like to do for fun?\"), which is a natural conversational maneuver. Speaker A then provides a clear answer, which Speaker B acknowledges with an expression of commonality (\"Oh, that sounds just like me!\") and then follows up with a relevant question about books. Speaker A's final response directly answers this question, providing specific details. The conversation flows coherently, with each turn building naturally on the previous one, maintaining a clear topic (getting to know each other's interests).\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns; the slight 1-second gaps (e.g., between 0:11 and 0:12, and 0:21 and 0:22) are natural and common in human conversation, allowing for processing time. There is one brief overlap identified: Speaker B begins speaking at 0:18 while Speaker A's turn ends at 0:19. This 1-second overlap is brief and sounds like an enthusiastic interjection (\"Oh, that sounds just like me!\"), which is explicitly stated as acceptable and not harmful in the scoring criteria (\"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\"). There are no extended or disruptive overlaps that impede communication.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--463",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: How do you feel about teaching my friend how to read?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: How old is your friend and why doesn't he know how to read yet?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: He's 78 and he's a new emigrant from South America and he's never been to school.\n[00:10 - 00:11] Speaker B: Does he even know how to speak English?\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: No. But I thought that you could start with reading and then maybe move\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: Wait, before we talk about reading, how is he managing day-to-day without knowing English?\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker A: He's struggling a bit, which is why I thought reading might help. And I was going to suggest starting with basic phrases to help him get by.\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker B: That was very thoughtful of you to volunteer me.\n[00:31 - 00:36] Speaker A: Come on. You're great at teaching and I know you will love him. He's adorable!\n[00:36 - 00:40] Speaker B: Oh, all right. Have him come over here for dinner. But you get to make dinner!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Speaker B's questions regarding the friend's age, reason for not reading, and English proficiency are highly relevant clarifying questions that address the practicalities of the initial request. Speaker A provides concise and coherent answers. Speaker B's concern about day-to-day management without English is a logical and important consideration for teaching an adult emigrant, showing practical foresight. Speaker A's subsequent explanation, connecting reading to basic phrases, maintains topic coherence. The slight shift to a more personal tone with Speaker B's \"thoughtful of you to volunteer me\" and Speaker A's persuasive follow-up (\"Come on. You're great at teaching...\") are natural conversational elements leading to the resolution. The final agreement by Speaker B is a direct and logical conclusion to the initial proposition. Overall, the conversation flows logically, maintaining topic coherence throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses that disrupt the flow of conversation. There are two brief overlaps:\n1.  [00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A starts speaking at 00:04 while Speaker B is still finishing at 00:05. This is a 1-second overlap.\n2.  [00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B starts speaking at 00:15 while Speaker A is still speaking at 00:16, effectively cutting Speaker A off. This is also a 1-second overlap.\n\nAccording to the instructions, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" Both observed overlaps are brief (1 second) and do not appear to be disruptive or extended. They contribute to a natural, dynamic conversational rhythm, indicating speakers are actively engaged and sometimes eager to contribute. There are no signs of \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns\" that would be harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--228",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Which sports are popular in your country?\n[00:02 - 00:09] Speaker B: Most people like football. More boys like football than girls. A few girls play it really well. Some people like playing basketball.\n[00:10 - 00:11] Speaker A: Do many people like tennis?\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker B: More and more people like it now. Fewer people play table tennis than before. Many people like swimming, because it is fun and keeps you active and\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but you mentioned swimming. Do you think it's more popular than football in your country?\n[00:25 - 00:38] Speaker B: Oh, no, football is definitely more popular. But swimming has its own dedicated following because it's both fun and keeps you fit. By the way, I was saying that in my country, many people enjoy golf, but it is too exclusive for\n[00:37 - 00:49] Speaker A: Too expensive, right? That's interesting. In my country, golf is also considered a sport for the wealthy. But I wanted to ask, you mentioned fewer people play table tennis now—any idea why?\n[00:49 - 01:00] Speaker B: Yes, it seems like people are shifting towards sports like tennis and basketball, which are gaining popularity. But coming back to golf, it is indeed too expensive for some people, and that's why not everyone plays it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains good response relevance and logical consistency.\n*   **Initial responses (00:02-00:09, 00:12-00:19):** Speaker B's responses directly answer Speaker A's questions about popular sports and tennis.\n*   **Speaker A's interjection (00:18-00:25):** Speaker A's question about swimming's popularity relative to football is relevant, following Speaker B's mention of swimming.\n*   **Speaker B's response (00:25-00:38):** Speaker B correctly clarifies football's greater popularity and then attempts to resume their earlier point about golf. This attempt to re-introduce golf after being interrupted is logically consistent with their prior intent, even if the flow is slightly broken by the interjection.\n*   **Speaker A's follow-up (00:37-00:49):** Speaker A acknowledges the golf point but then shifts back to an earlier detail mentioned by Speaker B (table tennis). This demonstrates attentive listening and good topic management by Speaker A.\n*   **Speaker B's final response (00:49-01:00):** Speaker B first provides a relevant answer to Speaker A's question about why table tennis is less popular. However, Speaker B then unnecessarily circles back to the topic of golf (\"But coming back to golf...\"), which Speaker A had already moved past. While not completely illogical, this repeated attempt to return to a previously discussed and effectively resolved point slightly detracts from the immediate topic coherence. It's not a major breakdown in relevance, but it makes the conversation slightly less fluid in its topic progression.\n\nOverall, responses are logically consistent and mostly coherent, with only a minor deviation in topic flow due to Speaker B's persistent attempt to return to the golf topic. This is not a \"significant issue\" but rather a slight natural imperfection.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between speakers are quick and natural.\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps identified in the transcript:\n    *   [00:18 - 00:25] Speaker A starts speaking at 00:18 while Speaker B's turn ends at 00:19. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges and apologizes for \"cutting in,\" which effectively manages the overlap and maintains politeness and conversational flow. This is a natural conversational occurrence, especially when seeking clarification or changing direction.\n    *   [00:37 - 00:49] Speaker A starts speaking at 00:37 while Speaker B's turn ends at 00:38. This is another 1-second overlap. This overlap seems to be Speaker A anticipating the end of Speaker B's sentence or confirming a point (\"Too expensive, right?\"). This is a brief and natural conversational dynamic, not a harmful prolonged overlap.\n\nThe evaluation criteria state that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these overlaps fit that description. They do not disrupt the conversation or make it difficult to follow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--229",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Freedom Travel. How may I help you?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yes, I'd like to make a flight reservation for the twenty third of this month.\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker A: Okay. What is your destination?\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B: Well. I'm flying to Helsinki, Finland.\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: Okay. Let me check what flights are available?\n[00:16 - 00:17] Speaker B: Okay.\n[00:17 - 00:20] Speaker A: And when will you be departing? Morning,\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker B: Oh, sorry to jump in, but I just remembered—I need to make sure the return flight is also the cheapest option. Can you check that as well?\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker A: Sure, I was actually about to ask when you'll be returning.\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker B: Uh, well, I'd like to catch a return flight on the twenty ninth. Oh, and I'd like the cheapest flight available.\n[00:37 - 00:41] Speaker A: Okay. Let me see. Um, hmm ...\n[00:41 - 00:42] Speaker B: Yeah?\n[00:42 - 00:49] Speaker A: Well, the price for the flight is almost double the price you would pay if you leave the day before 12 AM.\n[00:49 - 00:53] Speaker B: Whoo. Let's go with the cheaper flight. By the way, how much is it?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, and the conversation consistently stays on topic: making a flight reservation.\n- Speaker A's initial offer of help is met with Speaker B's clear request for a flight reservation.\n- Speaker A's follow-up questions about destination and departure details are perfectly relevant.\n- Speaker B provides the requested information and then introduces a crucial constraint (cheapest return flight), which is highly relevant to a travel booking.\n- Speaker A smoothly integrates this new information, even noting they were about to ask about the return.\n- Speaker A's subsequent revelation about the price difference and Speaker B's decision to go with the cheaper option, followed by a query about its price, all demonstrate logical progression and topic coherence.\nThere are no irrelevant diversions or illogical statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Most pauses are 1 second or less, which is natural and allows for processing.\n- There are several brief overlaps, all of which contribute to a natural and efficient conversational flow rather than hindering it.\n- For example, at [00:16 - 00:17], Speaker B says \"Okay\" just as Speaker A finishes, indicating immediate comprehension.\n- At [00:19 - 00:26], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A with \"Oh, sorry to jump in,\" which is an acknowledged and brief overlap (Speaker B starts speaking 1 second before Speaker A finishes). Speaker A handles this smoothly by confirming the relevance of B's interruption (\"Sure, I was actually about to ask...\"). This type of brief, acknowledged interruption is not harmful and can be a sign of active engagement.\n- Similarly, at [00:41 - 00:42], Speaker B prompts Speaker A with \"Yeah?\" during Speaker A's \"Um, hmm...\", showing active listening and encouraging continuation.\nAll overlaps are brief and contribute to the natural, conversational rhythm rather than creating prolonged, harmful speaking over one another.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--174",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, may I get you anything to drink?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Yes, please. May I get a glass of lemonade?\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: Would you like an appetizer?\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: May I get an order of barbeque wings?\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker A: Sure, would you like anything else with\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: Oh, before I forget, could you make sure the wings are extra crispy?\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker A: Of course, I'll make sure of that. By the way, would you like anything else with the wings?\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker B: That'll be fine for now, thank you.\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker A: Okay, tell me when you want to order the rest of your food.\n[00:26 - 00:28] Speaker B: Excuse me. I'm ready to order.\n[00:29 - 00:30] Speaker A: What would you like?\n[00:30 - 00:32] Speaker B: Let me have the baby-back ribs.\n[00:32 - 00:35] Speaker A: Sure, will there be anything else that I can get you?\n[00:35 - 00:39] Speaker B: That will be it for now. Oh, and did you remember to put in the wings as extra crispy?\n[00:40 - 00:42] Speaker A: Yes, I've got that noted. Enjoy your meal!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or logically follows from the previous turn.\n- Speaker A initiates by offering a drink, which Speaker B accepts and specifies.\n- Speaker A then naturally moves to appetizers, which Speaker B orders.\n- Speaker A's follow-up question \"Sure, would you like anything else with\" is momentarily interrupted by Speaker B, but Speaker B's interjection (\"Oh, before I forget, could you make sure the wings are extra crispy?\") is highly relevant to the previously ordered item.\n- Speaker A acknowledges this special request and reiterates the original question about adding anything else.\n- Speaker B responds clearly, and Speaker A provides instructions for later ordering.\n- Speaker B initiates the main course order, and Speaker A responds appropriately.\n- Speaker B places the order and then, relevantly, follows up on the previous special request about the wings.\n- Speaker A confirms and concludes the interaction.\nThe conversation maintains logical consistency and topic coherence throughout, perfectly simulating a typical restaurant ordering interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates strong fluency with natural turn-taking.\n- There is one brief overlap between [00:10 - 00:11] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This overlap is approximately 1 second long and is a common, natural occurrence in conversational speech, indicating engagement rather than a breakdown in communication. It is not an \"extended overlap\" that would disrupt the flow.\n- There are no long pauses detected. The pauses between turns, such as those between [00:14-00:15], [00:28-00:29], and [00:39-00:40], are consistently 1 second in duration. These are very brief and natural, allowing for seamless turn-taking without any awkward silences.\nThe pacing of the conversation feels natural and efficient.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--17641",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, I noticed that you've been really hard on yourself lately. What's going on?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: I don't know, I just feel like I'm not good enough. No matter what I do, it's never quite up\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but do you think this pressure you're putting on yourself might be coming from comparing yourself to others?\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: Yeah, maybe. I guess I do that a lot. But even when I try not to compare, it still feels like I'm falling short.\n[00:23 - 00:32] Speaker A: Well first of all, you are good enough. You're worthy of love and respect, just like anyone else. Secondly, comparing yourself to others is never going to help you feel better about yourself. Everyone has their own journey in life and moves at their own pace. You're exactly where you're supposed to be right now, even if it doesn't feel like it. So try to cut yourself some slack and be a little kinder to yourself, okay? We all make mistakes sometimes but that doesn't mean we're bad or undeserving\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker B: I get that, but it's really hard to change the way I think. How do I even start being kinder to myself?\n[00:37 - 00:49] Speaker A: It's definitely not easy, but it starts with small steps. Maybe begin by acknowledging your efforts, even the little things. And remember, it's okay to ask for help when you need it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's initial observation and question lead directly to Speaker B's expressed feelings of inadequacy. Speaker A's subsequent intervention about comparing oneself to others is a direct and relevant interpretation of Speaker B's feelings. Speaker B's response confirms this, maintaining topic coherence. Speaker A's long turn at [00:23 - 00:32] provides highly relevant reassurance and advice that directly addresses Speaker B's core issue of feeling \"not good enough\" and the comparison aspect. Speaker B's follow-up question at [00:31 - 00:37] is a logical next step, acknowledging the advice but seeking practical application. Finally, Speaker A's concluding advice is a direct and helpful response to Speaker B's practical question. The conversation flows naturally, each turn building logically on the previous one, and the topic remains consistently focused on Speaker B's self-perception and how to improve it.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two instances of overlaps:\n1.  At [00:09 - 00:16], Speaker A starts speaking at 0:09, while Speaker B's previous turn ends at 0:09. Speaker A acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" indicating a brief, natural interruption that is immediately apologized for. This is a very brief overlap, almost simultaneous, and not prolonged or disruptive.\n2.  At [00:31 - 00:37], Speaker B starts speaking at 0:31, while Speaker A's previous turn ends at 0:32. This is a 1-second overlap. This type of brief overlap often happens in natural conversation when a listener anticipates the end of a thought or is eager to interject with a related point/question. It does not appear to be an extended or disruptive overlap.\nThere are no long pauses evident between speaker turns. The conversational pace feels natural and engaging.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--609",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi, how are you?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm doing great. I'm making some progress on my project.\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker A: What are you working on?\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: I'm making a website for calculus. I wanted to use equations from math class in the content to\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A: How are you planning to integrate those equations? Are you using any specific tools or libraries for that?\n[00:17 - 00:28] Speaker B: Yes, I'm using a JavaScript library called MathJax. It helps in displaying mathematical notation. Calculus sounds really interesting, but what exactly do you think about using\n[00:27 - 00:35] Speaker A: Actually, I was going to ask about the main concepts of calculus. Can you explain derivatives and integrals a bit more?\n[00:35 - 00:45] Speaker B: Sure, derivatives represent the rate of change, while integrals are about accumulation of quantities. It's much more than that though, and you should definitely look into it sometime.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A & B:** Speaker B's response \"I'm doing great. I'm making some progress on my project\" directly and appropriately answers Speaker A's greeting and \"how are you,\" while also naturally introducing a topic for further discussion.\n2.  **[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker A:** Speaker A's question \"What are you working on?\" is a direct and logical follow-up to Speaker B's mention of \"my project.\"\n3.  **[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B:** Speaker B provides a clear and detailed answer, explaining the project's subject (calculus website) and a key aspect (using equations).\n4.  **[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A:** Speaker A's question \"How are you planning to integrate those equations? Are you using any specific tools or libraries for that?\" is highly relevant, picking up on Speaker B's mention of \"equations from math class.\"\n5.  **[00:17 - 00:28] Speaker B:** Speaker B directly answers the technical question about tools, naming \"MathJax.\" The subsequent attempt by Speaker B to pivot with \"Calculus sounds really interesting, but what exactly do you think about using\" indicates an attempt to engage Speaker A further on the subject, showing good interactional intent.\n6.  **[00:27 - 00:35] Speaker A:** Speaker A's interjection \"Actually, I was going to ask about the main concepts of calculus. Can you explain derivatives and integrals a bit more?\" is a slight shift in focus from the *implementation* of the website to the *subject matter* itself, but it is entirely coherent within the broader topic of calculus that Speaker B introduced. The phrase \"Actually, I was going to ask...\" makes this shift feel natural and premeditated by Speaker A, not an abrupt change. It shows A's genuine interest in the subject.\n7.  **[00:35 - 00:45] Speaker B:** Speaker B provides a concise and relevant explanation of derivatives and integrals, directly addressing Speaker A's question.\n\nOverall, the conversation flows logically, with each speaker's turn building upon or directly responding to the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence despite a minor, natural redirection.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent, demonstrating natural turn-taking with no disruptive elements.\n1.  **Pauses:**\n    *   There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's first turn (ending 0:04) and Speaker A's second turn (starting 0:05). This is a brief and acceptable pause, allowing for natural processing.\n    *   All other turn transitions (0:01, 0:06, 0:17, 0:35) are immediate (0-second pause), indicating very fluid and responsive conversation. There are no long pauses that would hinder the flow.\n\n2.  **Overlaps:**\n    *   There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker B's turn (0:06-0:11) and Speaker A's subsequent turn (0:10-0:17). Speaker A begins speaking at 0:10 while Speaker B finishes at 0:11.\n    *   There is another 1-second overlap between Speaker B's turn (0:17-0:28) and Speaker A's subsequent turn (0:27-0:35). Speaker A begins speaking at 0:27 while Speaker B finishes at 0:28.\n    *   Both identified overlaps are brief (1 second) and fall within the acceptable range specified in the instructions (\"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\"). They do not appear to be extended or harmful, but rather contribute to the natural, dynamic feel of the conversation where speakers are engaged and sometimes anticipate the end of a turn or interject relevant thoughts.\n\nIn summary, the dialogue exhibits no long pauses and only brief, non-disruptive overlaps, indicating high interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--100785",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: How are you today?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Fine, thank you. How can I help you?\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm looking for some new music to inspire me. Do you have any recommendations that\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but are you looking for something more upbeat or something more mellow? That might help narrow it down.\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker A: I'm not really sure. I just know that I'm looking for something different.\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B: Let me see if I can find something for you.\n[00:21 - 00:22] Speaker A: Thank you.\n[00:22 - 00:23] Speaker B: You're welcome.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial response \"Fine, thank you. How can I help you?\" appropriately follows Speaker A's greeting and opens the conversation for Speaker A's request. Speaker A clearly states their need for music recommendations. Speaker B's interjection \"Sorry to jump in, but are you looking for something more upbeat or something more mellow? That might help narrow it down\" is highly relevant; it's a clarifying question designed to make the recommendation process more effective, showing active engagement and an attempt to provide a useful service. Speaker A's response, although not a definitive answer, is logically consistent (\"I'm not really sure. I just know that I'm looking for something different\") as it directly addresses Speaker B's question. Speaker B's subsequent offer \"Let me see if I can find something for you\" is a direct and logical progression based on Speaker A's input. The concluding \"Thank you\" and \"You're welcome\" are standard and expected conversational closings. The dialogue stays focused on the task of finding music recommendations throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are smooth and natural. There is one brief overlap identified: Speaker A's turn ending at 00:09 overlaps with Speaker B's turn starting at 00:08 for 1 second. However, this is explicitly handled by Speaker B with \"Sorry to jump in,\" indicating an awareness of the interruption and making it a contextually appropriate and natural part of a dynamic conversation, especially when seeking clarification. The instructions state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This overlap is brief and serves a clear conversational purpose (clarification), rather than being disruptive. Therefore, it does not detract from the fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--433",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I hate the EU. It needs to be done away with.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: What's your problem with the EU?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: I just think that it stifles economic growth\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: Sorry, but how exactly does it stifle innovation? Can you give some examples?\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker A: Well, I believe there are too many regulations that hinder new ideas. But do you want to leave the EU?\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B: Oh no way! I love the EU. It's the best thing that ever happened to our country.\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: I love it too! Everyone benefits from the freedom of movement and the ability to work across Europe. It's amazing!\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker B: Well, it would be nice to be able to control our immigration policies\n[00:35 - 00:38] Speaker A: Hold on, why is controlling our borders so important to you?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a clear statement from Speaker A, followed by relevant questions and answers, maintaining topic coherence. Speaker A expresses their reasoning for disliking the EU, and Speaker B seeks clarification. Speaker A then redirects the question to Speaker B, which is a natural conversational flow. Speaker B responds directly with their opposing view.\n\nHowever, a significant logical inconsistency occurs at [00:24 - 00:31] when Speaker A states, \"I love it too! Everyone benefits from the freedom of movement and the ability to work across Europe. It's amazing!\" This directly contradicts Speaker A's initial statement at [00:00 - 00:03], \"I hate the EU. It needs to be done away with.\" This complete reversal of opinion by the same speaker within a short dialogue makes the conversation logically inconsistent and undermines the coherence of Speaker A's stance. While Speaker B's slight nuance about immigration policies after expressing love for the EU could be seen as a minor inconsistency, it's not as stark as Speaker A's outright contradiction. The primary issue is Speaker A's character inconsistency, which severely impacts response relevance in terms of logical consistency from a speaker's perspective.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the maximum pause observed is 1 second, which is natural and acceptable. There is one brief overlap at [00:07 - 00:08] where Speaker B starts speaking one second before Speaker A finishes. This is a brief overlap (1 second) and falls within the acceptable range for natural conversation, not an extended or disruptive overlap. Overall, the turn-taking is smooth, and there are no instances of prolonged silence or extensive talking over each other.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--436",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi, can I talk to Mary, please?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: This is Mary. Who's that speaking?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: Hi, Mary. This is Greg Sonders from Brown College.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: How can I help you, Mr. Sonders?\n[00:12 - 00:21] Speaker A: Well, your papers mention your impressive grade point average. And your test scores meet our admission standards. But we'd like to know if you'd be interested in college sports.\n[00:22 - 00:31] Speaker B: Definitely! I wrote on my application that I played high school basketball. In fact, I hold my school's all-time record for points scored in a single game,\n[00:30 - 00:38] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but that's really impressive! Just to clarify, do you have any interest in playing basketball at the college level?\n[00:38 - 00:45] Speaker B: Absolutely, I'd love to continue playing basketball in college. But I also wanted to mention that I play volleyball and was\n[00:44 - 00:54] Speaker A: Volleyball too? That's fantastic! We'll definitely take that into consideration. And just to circle back, how many points did you score in that record-breaking game?\n[00:55 - 00:57] Speaker B: I scored 38 points in that game.\n[00:57 - 01:03] Speaker A: Wow, that's incredible! You've certainly made an impression on us. We'll let you know our decision soon.\n[01:03 - 01:04] Speaker B: Thanks!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one, maintaining logical consistency and topic coherence throughout the conversation.\n- Speaker A initiates the call appropriately, and Speaker B responds by identifying herself and asking for the caller's identity.\n- Speaker A then clearly states the purpose of the call, referencing previously known information (GPA, test scores) and introducing the main topic of interest (college sports).\n- Speaker B provides a direct and enthusiastic answer, offering relevant details about her sports background.\n- Speaker A's follow-up questions and comments are directly related to the information provided by Speaker B, showing active listening (e.g., asking for clarification on basketball, circling back to the record-breaking game).\n- Speaker B also volunteers additional relevant information (volleyball) that is immediately acknowledged by Speaker A.\n- The conversation concludes naturally with Speaker A outlining the next steps and Speaker B expressing thanks.\nThere are no instances of off-topic remarks, misunderstandings, or irrelevant contributions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns that would indicate hesitation or a breakdown in communication. The slight pauses observed are natural and contribute to a realistic conversational flow.\nThere are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  At [00:30 - 00:31], Speaker A says \"Sorry to jump in\" while Speaker B is still finishing her sentence. This is a very brief (1-second) overlap and is explicitly acknowledged and mitigated by Speaker A, indicating active listening and eagerness rather than a disruptive interruption. It sounds natural for someone to interject when impressed.\n2.  At [00:44 - 00:45], Speaker A starts speaking (\"Volleyball too?\") just as Speaker B is finishing her thought (\"and was\"). This is another brief (1-second) overlap. It signifies engagement and enthusiasm from Speaker A, picking up immediately on the new piece of information. It does not impede the flow of communication and comes across as natural and engaged.\n\nNeither of these overlaps are extended or harmful; instead, they reflect a dynamic and engaged conversation, typical of natural speech.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--35781",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I like it here better, mom. The air is fresher and the sun is brighter. I feel happy like I\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: Why do you feel that way? Is it something specific about this place?\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: I don't know, it just feels right. Like this is where I'm supposed to find peace\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: I understand, but we can't stay here forever. Your father misses you terribly.\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker A: I know. But can't we just stay here for a little while longer? Please?\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B: We'll see. Let's take it one day at a time.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one, ensuring topic coherence throughout.\n*   Speaker A expresses their feelings about the place.\n*   Speaker B's immediate follow-up \"Why do you feel that way?\" is a direct and logical question to clarify A's statement.\n*   Speaker A's \"I don't know, it just feels right. Like this is where I'm supposed to find peace\" is a direct, albeit abstract, response to B's question.\n*   Speaker B then introduces a real-world constraint (\"but we can't stay here forever. Your father misses you terribly.\"), which is a natural progression in a discussion about staying in a place, especially between a parent and child. It acknowledges A's feeling but brings in practical considerations.\n*   Speaker A's \"I know. But can't we just stay here for a little while longer? Please?\" directly responds to B's constraint, acknowledging it (\"I know\") and then making a plea.\n*   Speaker B's final \"We'll see. Let's take it one day at a time\" is a common and relevant parental response to such a plea, managing expectations without outright refusing.\nThe conversation flows naturally and logically from personal feeling to practical reality and negotiation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n*   There are two instances of very brief overlaps:\n    *   [00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B begins at 0:05 while Speaker A is still speaking until 0:06. This is a 1-second overlap.\n    *   [00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B begins at 0:14 while Speaker A is still speaking until 0:15. This is also a 1-second overlap.\n    These overlaps are very short and typical of natural, engaged conversation, indicating active listening or a slight eagerness to respond rather than being prolonged or disruptive.\n*   There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. All transitions are immediate or involve only these brief, natural overlaps.\nTherefore, the conversation maintains a smooth and natural rhythm without any significant issues in terms of prolonged pauses or extended overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--145190",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm sorry for the way I've been acting, Dad. I know I've been a real pain lately.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: What's going on, son? You've seemed really out of sorts like there's\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker A: It's just everything, you know? School, girls, life in general. It all seems so complicated and confusing sometimes.\n[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker B: It can be, but that's just part of growing up. You're not a kid anymore, Shanon. You're a young man now and you need to start taking responsibility\n[00:22 - 00:33] Speaker A: I know I need to step up, but it's hard when I don't even know what stepping up means for me right now. I guess I'm just trying to figure out who I am and what I want in life.\n[00:33 - 00:41] Speaker B: That's perfectly normal. Just don't forget that your family is here for you no matter what happens. We love you no matter what and we'll always be here for you.\n[00:41 - 00:42] Speaker A: Thanks, Dad.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent **response relevance** and **logical consistency**. Each speaker's turn directly follows from and builds upon the previous one.\n\n*   Speaker A's initial apology is immediately followed by Speaker B's concerned inquiry.\n*   Speaker A's explanation of his difficulties is then met with Speaker B's understanding and guidance.\n*   Speaker A's elaboration on his struggles to \"step up\" is directly addressed by Speaker B's reassurance and offer of family support.\n*   The final \"Thanks, Dad\" from Speaker A is a natural and relevant conclusion to the supportive exchange.\n\nThe topic of a son's struggles with growing up and a father's empathetic advice is maintained throughout the entire conversation, demonstrating strong **topic coherence**. There are no irrelevant detours or illogical jumps in the dialogue.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates acceptable **interactional fluency**, but there are noticeable extended overlaps that detract slightly from naturalness.\n\n*   **[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker A:** Starts at 0:07 while Speaker B is still speaking until 0:08. This is a 1-second overlap. While brief overlaps are acceptable, this one is part of a pattern.\n*   **[00:22 - 00:33] Speaker A:** Starts at 0:22 while Speaker B is still speaking until 0:23. This is another 1-second overlap.\n\nThese overlaps, although only 1 second each, are consistently present where a new speaker starts before the previous speaker has finished their turn. While very brief, they are not the \"micro-overlaps\" of natural turn-taking but rather indicate the subsequent speaker cutting off the previous one slightly. However, these are not *prolonged* overlaps.\n\nThere are **no long pauses** between speaker turns, indicating a smooth flow of conversation in terms of timing between turns. The issues are with the brief \"stepping on\" of turns. Given the instruction that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful,\" these 1-second overlaps fall into the acceptable-to-borderline category rather than being truly \"harmful\" prolonged overlaps. They don't significantly impede understanding or naturalness, but they are consistently present.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--135565",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm angry with you for not talking to me about what was bothering you. What happened?\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker B: I'm sorry, Amos. I didn't mean to hurt you. I just didn't want to burden you with my problems, especially\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: Burden me? Tara, we're supposed to be friends. You should have come to me with whatever was wrong.\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker B: I know. I'm sorry. It's just that everything has been so hard lately, and I didn't want to drag you into my\n[00:20 - 00:32] Speaker A: Down? Tara, you can always talk to me about anything. I'm here for you, no matter what. Okay? Promise me you'll come to me next time something is bothering you.\n[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker B: Okay, Amos. I promise.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B's apologies and explanations directly address Speaker A's initial anger and question. Speaker A's subsequent responses consistently challenge Speaker B's rationale for not sharing (e.g., \"burden me?\") and reinforce their willingness to listen and support. The conversation maintains a clear topic focus on the breach of trust and the importance of open communication in their friendship. Speaker A's final reassurance and request for a promise are logical follow-ups to the preceding discussion. Even the slight awkwardness of \"drag you into my down\" (likely Speaker A finishing Speaker B's incomplete thought \"into my problems/difficulty/situation\") doesn't detract from the overall logical flow or coherence of the interaction's core message.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are no prolonged pauses that would disrupt the flow. There is one brief overlap between Speaker B ending at 0:21 and Speaker A starting at 0:20. This 1-second overlap is short and falls within the acceptable range for brief overlaps in natural conversation, especially in a an emotionally charged discussion where one speaker (A) might be eager to interject reassurance or clarify a point. It does not constitute a \"prolonged overlapping turn\" and does not significantly harm the conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--700",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I made a great lasagna the other day. Do you want the recipe?\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: Sure, I'd love to try it.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'll have to write it down for you, though. I'll make sure\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: Actually, can you just text it to me? It might be easier and quicker.\n[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker A: Oh, that's a good idea! I'll text it to you. By the way, do you have any dietary restrictions I should be aware of before I send it?\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker B: No, I don't have any dietary restrictions. I'll see you tomorrow!\n[00:25 - 00:26] Speaker A: Ok. I'll see you then!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one.\n- Speaker A introduces a topic (lasagna recipe) and asks a relevant question.\n- Speaker B provides a direct and affirmative response.\n- Speaker A continues the thought regarding sharing the recipe.\n- Speaker B interjects with a practical suggestion for sharing the recipe, which is highly relevant to the ongoing topic.\n- Speaker A accepts the suggestion and then proactively asks a logical follow-up question about dietary restrictions, demonstrating consideration related to the recipe.\n- Speaker B answers the question directly and then introduces a natural closing remark.\n- Speaker A reciprocates the closing remark.\nThe topic remains coherent throughout, evolving from the recipe offer to the method of sharing and practical considerations for it, before concluding. There are no irrelevant statements or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses identified are all brief (around 1 second, e.g., 00:03-00:04, 00:20-00:21, 00:24-00:25), which are natural and acceptable in conversation.\n- There is one brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from 00:08 - 00:09 (1 second). This is a very short overlap and falls under the category of \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\" as per the criteria. It does not constitute an \"extended overlap\" which would be harmful.\nThe conversation flows very naturally and smoothly.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--594",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi, I'm Alice.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Hi, I'm Bob. What do you need help with?\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm looking for advice on how to discipline a child.\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker B: Discipline a child?\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker A: Yeah, my daughter is really stubborn.\n[00:13 - 00:14] Speaker B: And what kind of child is she?\n[00:15 - 00:16] Speaker A: She's a 4-year-old daughter.\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker B: So what do you do when you want to discipline her?\n[00:20 - 00:21] Speaker A: We usually yell or spank.\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker B: Oh wow, spanking is really controversial, but it's been practiced for generations and\n[00:26 - 00:28] Speaker A: I don't think spanking is effective.\n[00:29 - 00:30] Speaker B: So what would you suggest?\n[00:30 - 00:37] Speaker A: If you're really frustrated, try putting the child in timeout. That way the child can cool down and rejoin the family.\n[00:38 - 00:41] Speaker B: Hm, do you know what is effective in disciplining a child?\n[00:41 - 00:45] Speaker A: Ah, discipline? I don't know what would be more effective than using timeout\n[00:44 - 00:49] Speaker B: Actually, I read some research that positive reinforcement can be very effective. Have you tried that?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A consistently brings up topics related to child discipline, and Speaker B follows up with relevant questions or suggestions. For instance, when Alice mentions her daughter is stubborn, Bob asks about her age, which provides useful context. When Alice reveals her discipline methods (yelling/spanking), Bob immediately addresses the controversial nature of spanking, and Alice interjects with her own view, which is coherent with the ongoing discussion. Bob then appropriately asks for Alice's suggestions, leading to the introduction of \"timeout.\" The slight awkwardness around [00:38 - 00:45] where Bob asks \"Hm, do you know what is effective in disciplining a child?\" after Alice just suggested timeout, and Alice's response \"I don't know what would be more effective than using timeout\" is quickly resolved by Bob introducing positive reinforcement. This shows that while there might be a minor misinterpretation or a slightly indirect follow-up, the conversation quickly re-aligns to the core topic and progresses logically. The overall topic coherence around child discipline methods is maintained throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is consistently appropriate and natural. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; all pauses are brief (typically 1 second or less), which is very natural for a conversational flow. There are brief overlaps detected at [00:26 - 00:28] (1 second overlap), [00:41 - 00:45] (effectively zero overlap as B finishes at 0:41 and A starts at 0:41), and [00:44 - 00:49] (1 second overlap). These overlaps are brief and appear to be instances of natural interjection or active engagement (e.g., Alice interjecting her opinion on spanking, Bob interjecting with a new suggestion). They do not constitute \"prolonged overlapping turns\" that would be harmful or disruptive to the conversation. In fact, they contribute to the natural, dynamic feel of the interaction, showing that both speakers are actively listening and engaged.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--432",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm taking a class on Existential Psychology next semester. Are you familiar with that theory?\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: What is it exactly?\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: A lot of the theories deal with whether we should strive to achieve a meaningful life.\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker B: Why do you want a meaningful life?\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker A: Because then I would be able to feel a sense of purpose and satisfaction.\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker B: So you're saying you would want a meaningful life if you had it?\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker A: Yeah! I mean, maybe I wouldn't care about the meaning as much if I had a fulfilling life without it.\n[00:29 - 00:35] Speaker B: I don't know. The people who think life has meaning and then complain when it doesn't aren't always the happiest\n[00:34 - 00:43] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but do you think those people are unhappy because they can't find meaning, or because they have unrealistic expectations?\n[00:44 - 00:51] Speaker B: Well, maybe you're right. My friend's roommate is really worried about everything all the time. I think she feels a lot of meaninglessness.\n[00:51 - 01:00] Speaker A: Yeah, I think it's good to worry about things, but if you're always worrying about things, then you can't focus on the things you're passionate about\n[00:59 - 01:05] Speaker B: It's crazy how I can sometimes have a really negative thought, but then I can be motivated to go and do something with my life!\n[01:05 - 01:12] Speaker A: I think there are some people who are too focused on making something meaningful rather than just enjoying what they already have.\n[01:12 - 01:13] Speaker B: What do you mean?\n[01:14 - 01:17] Speaker A: I guess I just don't think that focusing on meaning is important.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. The speakers engage in a coherent discussion about the concept of a \"meaningful life\" and related ideas from Existential Psychology.\n\n- **[00:00 - 00:11]** Speaker A introduces the topic, and Speaker B seeks clarification, establishing the initial focus.\n- **[00:12 - 00:18]** Speaker B probes A's personal motivation, and A provides a direct and logical answer.\n- **[00:19 - 00:28]** Speaker B challenges A's premise, leading A to elaborate on their nuanced perspective. This shows a good back-and-forth building on the previous turn.\n- **[00:29 - 00:43]** Speaker B introduces a counter-argument/observation, and Speaker A, despite the overlap, asks a relevant clarifying question that pushes B to refine their point. This demonstrates active listening and engagement with the logical flow.\n- **[00:44 - 00:51]** Speaker B responds to A's question with an example, maintaining topic coherence.\n- **[00:51 - 01:00]** Speaker A builds on B's example, connecting it to their own views on worry and passion, which are related concepts to life satisfaction and meaning.\n- **[00:59 - 01:05]** Speaker B introduces a personal reflection about motivation. While a slight shift to personal experience, it's still within the broader theme of how one approaches life and its challenges, maintaining overall relevance.\n- **[01:05 - 01:17]** Speaker A offers a contrasting perspective on \"making something meaningful\" versus \"enjoying what they have,\" directly responding to B's previous point. Speaker B then seeks clarification, and A provides a clear summary of their stance, bringing the discussion to a focused conclusion.\n\nThe conversation flows logically, with speakers building on each other's points, asking clarifying questions, and introducing related ideas without significant topic shifts or logical inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, reflecting a natural and unforced conversation.\n\n- **Pauses:** There are small, natural pauses (e.g., 1 second between [00:11] and [00:12], [00:18] and [00:19], [00:28] and [00:29], [00:43] and [00:44], [01:13] and [01:14]). These are perfectly acceptable and contribute to the natural rhythm of dialogue, allowing speakers a moment to process and formulate their thoughts. There are no long or awkward silences.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps:\n    - **[00:34 - 00:43] Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B (B finishes at 0:35, A starts at 0:34).** This is a 1-second overlap. Crucially, Speaker A acknowledges it immediately with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates politeness and awareness, making the overlap feel natural and not disruptive.\n    - **[00:59 - 01:05] Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A (A finishes at 1:00, B starts at 0:59).** This is also a 1-second overlap. This type of brief overlap often happens in natural conversation when a speaker anticipates or is eager to contribute, and it doesn't hinder comprehension or flow in this instance.\n\nBoth overlaps are brief and do not negatively impact the flow or clarity of the conversation. They are consistent with the \"brief overlaps... are acceptable\" criteria. The dialogue maintains a steady, engaging pace without any problematic breaks or prolonged interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--46130",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I had such a great time canoeing last weekend. I really want to go camping again, but this time in the woods.\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: That sounds like a lot of fun! I love camping in\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A: Oh, do you have any specific spots in mind? I was thinking of somewhere with a good hiking trail.\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker B: Actually, yes! There's this place up north with beautiful trails and a lake nearby. It's perfect for a weekend getaway.\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker A: That sounds amazing! I just love being out in nature and being able to explore new trails, especially\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker B: Oh, speaking of exploring, do you think we should bring some extra gear this time? Like maybe a portable stove or a hammock?\n[00:35 - 00:41] Speaker A: Good idea, especially the hammock! It would be great to just relax in the woods and really connect with nature.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. The conversation flows naturally from Speaker A's desire for camping, to Speaker B's agreement and shared interest, then to a discussion about specific locations and eventually necessary gear. Each speaker's turn builds upon the previous one, either by directly answering a question (e.g., Speaker B suggesting a place after Speaker A asks for spots) or by elaborating on a shared theme (e.g., Speaker B's suggestion of gear linked to Speaker A's talk of exploring). There are no abrupt topic shifts that feel out of place, and the contributions are always relevant to the ongoing discussion about camping.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, reflecting a natural conversation. There are two instances of brief overlap:\n- At [00:08], Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence, resulting in a 1-second overlap.\n- At [00:27], Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence, resulting in a 2-second overlap.\nThese overlaps are relatively short and common in natural, enthusiastic conversation where speakers might anticipate or interject slightly. They do not appear to be \"extended overlaps\" that disrupt the flow or cause confusion. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth and responsive conversational rhythm. The dialogue feels dynamic and engaging.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--42959",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: What the hell, An? I dropped something on your floor and you're already giving me a hard time about it?\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Hey, it's my floor and I don't want anything getting messy. You should be more careful with\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: Careful? I get it, alright? It was a stupid mistake. I'm sorry.\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker B: Yeah, well, you should be. Now pick it up and make sure\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker A: Hold on, I said I'm sorry. But you don't have to be such a jerk about it.\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker B: I'm not being a jerk. I just don't want my place to get messy.\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker A: It's not like it's going to kill you if there's a little mess on the floor.\n[00:30 - 00:34] Speaker B: Maybe not, but it doesn't mean I want it there. Now pick it up and let's move on.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one, maintaining a clear topic of conflict resolution (or escalation, in this case) over a dropped item and Speaker B's reaction. Speaker A's initial defensiveness, subsequent apology, and then frustration are logical responses to Speaker B's perceived strictness. Speaker B's insistence on cleanliness and justification for their stance are also consistent. The conversation flows coherently from the initial incident to the interpersonal tension it creates, demonstrating logical progression of an argument.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are brief overlaps at `[00:09 - 00:10]` (1 second) and `[00:16 - 00:17]` (1 second). These are short and can indicate natural turn-taking, interjections, or a slightly confrontational tone, which fits the context of the dialogue. The pauses between turns are also very brief (1 second or less), indicating a dynamic and continuous flow of conversation without awkward silences. These brief overlaps and short pauses are acceptable and contribute to the naturalistic feel of the dialogue, rather than being harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--144697",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Thank you so much for the ride, it was really appreciated. How long have you been driving for Uber?\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: I've been driving for Uber for about a year and it's\n[00:08 - 00:16] Speaker A: A year? That's a good amount of time. I'm sure it's a great way to make some extra money. What do you like most about driving for Uber?\n[00:17 - 00:28] Speaker B: I really like the flexibility that comes with driving for Uber. I can set my own hours and work as much or as little as I want. Plus, I get to meet a lot of interesting people from all over the city, and\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker A: Speaking of interesting people, have you ever had any unusual or memorable passengers?\n[00:33 - 00:44] Speaker B: Oh, definitely! There's always someone with a unique story or a surprising destination. But going back to what I was saying, I also enjoy the fact that I get to explore different parts of the city that I wouldn't normally visit.\n[00:45 - 00:57] Speaker A: That sounds great! I'm considering signing up to drive myself, but I'm not sure if it's something I would be good at. Do you have any advice for someone who is thinking about becoming an Uber driver?\n[00:57 - 01:08] Speaker B: My best advice would be to just go for it and give it a try! You might surprise yourself with how well you do. It's really not as difficult as you might think, and it can be a fun and rewarding experience.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A's questions directly follow from Speaker B's previous statements, showing active listening and natural conversational progression (e.g., asking \"What do you like most about driving for Uber?\" after learning how long Speaker B has been driving, and then asking about \"unusual or memorable passengers\" after Speaker B mentions meeting \"interesting people\"). Speaker B's answers are directly relevant to Speaker A's questions. While Speaker B briefly redirects (\"But going back to what I was saying\") at [00:33], this is an explicit signal to resume a previous thought, which maintains coherence rather than breaking it. Speaker A's final question about advice for new drivers is a natural extension of the conversation about driving for Uber.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two instances of brief overlaps identified ([00:08 - 00:09] and [00:27 - 00:28]). In both cases, Speaker A's overlap is brief and cooperative, either reacting immediately to Speaker B's statement (\"A year?\") or picking up on a key phrase to transition to a related question (\"Speaking of interesting people\"). These are characteristic of natural, engaged conversation and do not appear to be disruptive or prolonged. The pauses between turns are consistently very short (around 1 second), indicating a smooth flow without any significant hesitation or disengagement from either speaker.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--45963",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I love the fresh air. It's so invigorating.\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: Yeah, I know what you mean. There's something about being in nature that just makes you feel more connected\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but do you think it's the air quality or just the change of scenery that makes such a difference?\n[00:14 - 00:23] Speaker B: That's a good point! I think it's a combination of both. The clean scent of the air and the natural surroundings really contribute to that refreshed and rejuvenated feeling.\n[00:23 - 00:32] Speaker A: Exactly! I feel so happy when I'm outside. Just breathing in the clean scent of the air makes me feel refreshed and rejuvenated.\n[00:32 - 00:38] Speaker B: I can definitely understand that. Being outside in the fresh air is one of my favorite things to do too.\n[00:38 - 00:42] Speaker A: It's just so peaceful and calming. I can't get enough of the way\n[00:41 - 00:47] Speaker B: Oh, absolutely! And I was wondering, do you think spending more time outdoors regularly could actually improve our mental health?\n[00:48 - 00:56] Speaker A: Definitely. I believe it can help reduce stress and anxiety, and just being in a peaceful environment really helps with that.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the topic of the positive effects of fresh air and nature.\n- Speaker B's initial response (0:03-0:08) directly affirms Speaker A's sentiment and expands on it.\n- Speaker A's subsequent question (0:07-0:14) is a direct follow-up, seeking clarification on the *reason* for the feeling, which is highly relevant to the initial observation.\n- Speaker B's answer (0:14-0:23) directly addresses A's question.\n- Speaker A's agreement and reiteration (0:23-0:32) reinforce the shared experience.\n- Speaker B's affirmation (0:32-0:38) shows understanding and shared preference.\n- Speaker B's natural transition to mental health (0:41-0:47) is a logical extension of discussing the peaceful and calming effects, maintaining topic coherence while gently broadening the scope.\n- Speaker A's final response (0:48-0:56) directly answers the new question posed by Speaker B.\nThe conversation maintains strong topic coherence throughout, progressing naturally from general appreciation to specific benefits. There are no instances of irrelevant or off-topic contributions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The gaps are minimal and natural, allowing for processing and turn-taking without feeling disruptive. For instance, the 1-second gap at 0:03 and 0:48 is perfectly natural.\n- There are two brief overlaps:\n    - At 0:07-0:08, Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which indicates natural conversational management rather than a problematic overlap. This is a very brief 1-second overlap.\n    - At 0:41-0:42, Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still talking, cutting A off mid-sentence. This is also a brief 1-second overlap. This type of overlap often signifies high engagement and eagerness to contribute, and it's not prolonged or disruptive to the flow.\nAccording to the criteria, \"small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these examples fall into that category. They do not constitute \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" issues. The overall flow is natural and engaging.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--658",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hello!\n[00:01 - 00:01] Speaker B: Hi there.\n[00:02 - 00:10] Speaker A: I just finished my workout and I was thinking about eating some almonds before I go for a run. Do you know of a brand that you can recommend for\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I wanted to ask, are you considering almonds specifically for their protein content, or is there another reason?\n[00:16 - 00:24] Speaker A: Mainly for the protein, but also because they are convenient. You should eat nuts! Have you tried them in your exercise regimen before?\n[00:25 - 00:28] Speaker B: I haven't, but I've heard that they're a good source of protein.\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker A: True! Did you eat nuts in Japan?\n[00:32 - 00:36] Speaker B: No, I didn't see a lot of almonds there. Are they not so popular or maybe\n[00:35 - 00:39] Speaker A: Actually, there are lots of different kinds of nuts. You should try them all!\n[00:40 - 00:41] Speaker B: That sounds like a lot of work.\n[00:42 - 00:45] Speaker A: It's okay. You'll have a lot of energy after your workout!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue starts with a clear query from Speaker A about almond brand recommendations for pre-run consumption.\n*   Speaker B's first response, asking for clarification on the purpose (protein vs. other reasons), is highly relevant and logical, aiming to provide a better recommendation.\n*   Speaker A's response confirms protein and convenience. However, Speaker A then immediately pivots from seeking recommendations to *giving advice* (\"You should eat nuts!\") and asking Speaker B about their habits (\"Have you tried them in your exercise regimen before?\"). This is a sudden and somewhat unnatural topic shift from the initial goal.\n*   Speaker B responds coherently to the \"protein\" part of A's statement.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up, \"True! Did you eat nuts in Japan?\", is a severe and completely irrelevant topic shift. There has been no mention of Japan, making this a non-sequitur that breaks logical consistency.\n*   Speaker B attempts to address the Japan question, maintaining coherence on their part.\n*   Speaker A's next turn, \"Actually, there are lots of different kinds of nuts. You should try them all!\", completely ignores Speaker B's previous statement about Japan and swings back to generic nut advice, again without clear logical progression from the immediate preceding turn.\n*   Speaker B's response \"That sounds like a lot of work\" is a coherent and understandable reaction to A's \"try them all\" suggestion.\n*   Speaker A's final statement, \"It's okay. You'll have a lot of energy after your workout!\", is illogical and incoherent. It disconnects from Speaker B's \"lot of work\" comment and refers to Speaker A's *own* workout mentioned at the very beginning, implying it applies to Speaker B in a way that doesn't make sense given the current context. Speaker A repeatedly introduces irrelevant topics and makes comments that lack logical connection to the preceding turns, significantly disrupting topic coherence. Speaker B generally tries to maintain coherence despite A's erratic contributions.\n\n**Conclusion for Response Relevance:** There are significant issues with response relevance, primarily driven by Speaker A's frequent and illogical topic shifts and non-sequiturs, particularly the \"Japan\" question and the final \"workout\" comment.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   **Overlap 1:** [00:09 - 00:16] Speaker B starts speaking at 00:09 while Speaker A is still speaking until 00:10. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and politeness, making it an acceptable and natural interruption rather than a disruptive one.\n*   **Overlap 2:** [00:35 - 00:39] Speaker A starts speaking at 00:35 while Speaker B is still speaking until 00:36. This is a 1-second overlap. While not explicitly acknowledged, brief overlaps like this are common in natural conversation and do not indicate a significant fluency issue.\n*   **Pauses:** There are brief pauses (around 1 second) between turns, for example:\n    *   [00:00 - 00:01] (1s pause) between A and B.\n    *   [00:31 - 00:32] (1s pause) between A and B.\n    *   [00:39 - 00:40] (1s pause) between A and B.\n    *   [00:41 - 00:42] (1s pause) between B and A.\n    These are short and natural pauses, not prolonged or disruptive.\n\n**Conclusion for Interactional Fluency:** The interaction exhibits good fluency. Overlaps are brief and one is explicitly acknowledged, and pauses are short and natural. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would be harmful to the conversation flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--78053",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hey, Kaitlyn. I was thinking about mowing lawns in our neighborhood to help out. Would you be interested in joining me?\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: That sounds like a great idea! I'm definitely up for helping out around the neighborhood. Let's figure out\n[00:11 - 00:20] Speaker A: Before we dive in, do you think we should maybe talk to a few neighbors first to see if they need the help or if they have any specific requests?\n[00:20 - 00:32] Speaker B: Absolutely, getting some input from the neighbors would be smart. And maybe we could even organize a small group to join us if there's more interest. I'm always looking for ways to give back. This is a great way to do it.\n[00:33 - 00:42] Speaker A: Yeah, I feel really good when I'm able to help other people. It's like I'm making a difference in their lives, even if it's just a small gesture, it\n[00:41 - 00:47] Speaker B: Oh, and we should also think about the tools we'll need. Do you have enough equipment, or should we borrow some from others?\n[00:48 - 01:00] Speaker A: I have some tools, but we might need to borrow a few more depending on how many lawns we end up doing. And you're right, even the smallest things can have the biggest impact. So let's get started!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial response enthusiastically agrees with Speaker A's proposal. Speaker A then introduces a relevant next step (talking to neighbors), which Speaker B readily accepts and expands upon. Speaker A then connects with Speaker B's sentiment about giving back, showing emotional resonance and topic coherence. Speaker B then smoothly transitions to a practical aspect (tools), which Speaker A addresses before circling back to the shared motivation. All turns are coherent, logically follow from the previous ones, and stay on the overarching topic of planning to help neighbors. There are no sudden shifts or irrelevant comments.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural. There are two instances of very brief overlaps:\n- At [00:11 - 00:12], Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their previous thought. This is a common and natural occurrence in conversational turn-taking, indicating engagement rather than disruption.\n- At [00:41 - 00:42], Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. Again, this is brief and characteristic of dynamic, engaged conversation.\nThere are no extended overlaps where speakers talk over each other for prolonged periods, nor are there any long pauses between turns that would hinder the flow of the conversation. The brief pauses (e.g., 1 second between turns) are natural and contribute to the conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--19",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Is anybody in?\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: How can I help you?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker A: I have a headache.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Let me take your temperature with a thermometer.\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker A: OK.\n[00:08 - 00:10] Speaker B: I think you have a small fever.\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker A: I thought so. I felt dizzy this morning, and\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: Wait, did you drink enough water today? Sometimes dehydration can cause dizziness too.\n[00:18 - 00:22] Speaker A: I did drink water, but I haven't mentioned that I felt dizzy this morning yet.\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker B: Oh, right. Sorry about that. You should've called in sick! Next time, have either of your parents call the school office.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance starts strong, with logical follow-up questions and symptom reports. However, a significant issue arises at [00:13]. Speaker B interrupts Speaker A, who is in the middle of saying \"I felt dizzy this morning, and\". Speaker B then asks \"Wait, did you drink enough water today? Sometimes dehydration can cause dizziness too.\" This response, while topically related to dizziness, is based on a premature assumption that Speaker A had finished their thought or was even *asking* about dizziness. Speaker A clarifies this directly at [00:18 - 00:22]: \"I did drink water, but I haven't mentioned that I felt dizzy this morning yet.\" This highlights a breakdown in logical consistency, as Speaker B's response was based on incomplete information and an interruption, leading to a misunderstanding that Speaker B then has to apologize for (\"Oh, right. Sorry about that.\"). The final advice from Speaker B, \"You should've called in sick! Next time, have either of your parents call the school office,\" feels somewhat out of place and preachy given the context of a medical symptom report, though it does follow the \"sick\" topic generally. The core issue is the premature interruption and the resulting logical inconsistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction generally flows well with appropriate pauses in the initial turns. However, there is a clear and harmful overlapping turn at [00:13]. Speaker A's turn runs from [00:10 - 00:14]. Speaker B's turn begins at [00:13] and continues to [00:18]. This means Speaker B starts speaking 1 second before Speaker A finishes their sentence. This is not a brief, acceptable overlap, but a full interruption, as confirmed by Speaker A's subsequent clarification. Speaker B interjects with a question and advice while Speaker A is still actively providing information. This disruptive overlap directly impacts the conversational flow and information exchange, leading to a misunderstanding that requires explicit correction from Speaker A.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--11705",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm feeling much better today, thank you. I have more energy and I'm not nauseous like I\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker B: That's a relief to hear! But have you had a chance to see the doctor just to make sure everything's okay?\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A: I haven't, but I probably should, just to be safe. I was pretty out of it the past few days.\n[00:17 - 00:21] Speaker B: Yeah, you looked really pale and tired. I was starting to worry that it\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker A: I know, and I'm sorry for that. But honestly, I'm on the mend now.\n[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker B: That's all that matters. As long as you're getting better.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's responses consistently address Speaker A's statements, showing concern and building on the current topic of Speaker A's health. For instance, Speaker B's question about seeing a doctor directly follows Speaker A's health update. Similarly, Speaker A acknowledges Speaker B's worry and reassures them. The conversation flows naturally from Speaker A feeling better, to Speaker B's concern, and back to Speaker A's reassurance. The topic coherence is excellent throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two brief overlaps identified by the timestamps:\n1.  `[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker B:` overlaps `[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A:` for about 1 second (00:05-00:06). This is a natural brief overlap, where Speaker B interjects with a reaction (\"That's a relief to hear!\") as Speaker A is finishing their sentence.\n2.  `[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker A:` overlaps `[00:17 - 00:21] Speaker B:` at the 00:21 mark. This is an extremely brief overlap (less than 1 second), where Speaker A starts speaking right as Speaker B's sentence cuts off, indicating a smooth, natural turn-taking.\nAccording to the instructions, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" Neither of these overlaps are prolonged or harmful. There are no long pauses between turns. The conversation flows smoothly and naturally.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--10",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Who stands out in your mind as a man or woman of sound character?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: If I think of famous people, I think of Abraham Lincoln.\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: He's the US president, who walked five miles just to give a lady her change, isn't that a\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but wasn't he also the one who faced a lot of failures before finally becoming president?\n[00:17 - 00:27] Speaker A: Yes, exactly. He ran for office quite a few times before he was finally elected. And I also admire him for his courage in fighting for equal rights.\n[00:28 - 00:30] Speaker B: He had great vision, didn't he?\n[00:30 - 00:41] Speaker A: And humility. Oh, and about that story you mentioned earlier—yes, he did walk those five miles just to return the lady's change. I would have liked to meet him personally.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building upon the discussion of Abraham Lincoln's character. Speaker B's initial answer directly addresses Speaker A's question. Speaker A then offers an anecdote about Lincoln's character, which Speaker B immediately follows up with another relevant characteristic (perseverance through failure). Speaker A confirms and expands on this, also adding Lincoln's fight for equal rights. Speaker B adds \"great vision,\" and Speaker A introduces \"humility\" before circling back to confirm the initial anecdote about the five-mile walk, which had been interrupted. This demonstrates strong topic coherence and memory of previous points in the conversation, making the dialogue feel natural and well-structured.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are no long pauses between turns, indicating a smooth flow of conversation. There is a brief overlap between [00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A's turn and [00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B's turn. This overlap lasts for only about 1 second ([00:12 - 00:13]). Critically, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges and apologizes for cutting in (\"Sorry to cut in\"), which is a common and natural occurrence in real-time conversation and indicates polite turn-taking management. This brief, acknowledged overlap falls within the acceptable range and does not hinder the conversation's flow or understanding. It's not an \"extended overlap.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--613",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi, Bob. Do you have a Facebook account?\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: Yeah, you could say that I'm quite the Facebook guy. It's kind of my go-to platform\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker A: Really? I have an account too! I'm pretty excited. I don't know what to do with it yet, but it seems like fun.\n[00:15 - 00:16] Speaker B: What's your account name?\n[00:17 - 00:18] Speaker A: \"Alice New York\".\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B: That's a nice name! I'll add you as soon\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker A: Wait, before you do, can you tell me what kinds of things you usually post? I'm curious.\n[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker B: Sure, I usually post about my travels and some tech stuff. I'll add you now.\n[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker A: I really appreciate it! I've added you too. My account name is \"Bob Seattle\".\n[00:36 - 00:39] Speaker B: Cool! I'm looking forward to having a lot of fun on here.\n[00:40 - 00:43] Speaker A: That's exactly what I'm thinking. You?\n[00:43 - 00:45] Speaker B: Same here! I'm really excited.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains topic coherence around Facebook accounts and interactions. Speakers ask and answer questions appropriately, and the conversation flows logically through the process of connecting on the platform. Speaker B's responses are consistently relevant to Speaker A's inquiries and statements. Speaker A's initial responses are also relevant.\n\nHowever, there is a significant logical inconsistency introduced by Speaker A. At [00:17 - 00:18], Speaker A states their account name is \"Alice New York\". Later, at [00:30 - 00:36], after saying \"I've added you too,\" Speaker A then states \"My account name is 'Bob Seattle'.\" This creates a direct contradiction regarding Speaker A's identity or account. This is a major issue in logical consistency, as a single speaker should not have two different account names attributed to them in such a direct manner without explanation. This inconsistency makes the dialogue unnatural and flawed in terms of response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is quite good.\nThere are brief overlaps:\n- [00:07 - 00:15] Speaker A starts at 00:07 while Speaker B's turn ends at 00:08, a 1-second overlap.\n- [00:20 - 00:26] Speaker A starts at 00:20 while Speaker B's turn ends at 00:21, a 1-second overlap.\nThese are natural, brief overlaps that occur in normal conversation and are explicitly stated as acceptable in the instructions.\n\nThere are also brief pauses:\n- A 1-second pause between [00:16] and [00:17].\n- A 1-second pause between [00:18] and [00:19].\n- A 1-second pause between [00:39] and [00:40].\nThese are small pauses, typical for conversational turns, and are also explicitly stated as acceptable.\n\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected. The turn-taking is smooth and natural, apart from the content issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--610",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What are you working on right now?\n[00:02 - 00:13] Speaker B: We're planning to redo the kitchen and bathrooms soon. We want to remove the pink tile in the bathroom and replace it with white subway tiles, and replace the countertops with some marble-look material. I'm really excited about\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker A: Are you going to redo your laundry room as well? That's the worst part!\n[00:17 - 00:20] Speaker B: I'm so glad you understand! My wife hates to wash laundry.\n[00:21 - 00:30] Speaker A: It takes so much time and effort. Have you thought about making your own laundry detergent? I used to do it all the time and it really saved me a lot of money.\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker B: That's a good idea - I'll look into it. By the way, I was saying I'm really excited about the new countertops.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n\n*   **Turn 1 (A) & Turn 2 (B):** Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's open-ended question about what they're working on, providing specific details about kitchen and bathroom renovations. This is highly relevant.\n*   **Turn 3 (A):** Speaker A follows up on the renovation topic by asking about the laundry room and adding a personal comment about it being \"the worst part.\" This maintains topic coherence, expanding on the home renovation theme.\n*   **Turn 4 (B):** Speaker B responds directly to Speaker A's comment about the laundry room, showing understanding and agreement (\"I'm so glad you understand! My wife hates to wash laundry.\"). This is perfectly relevant.\n*   **Turn 5 (A):** Speaker A continues the laundry room discussion by empathizing (\"It takes so much time and effort.\") and then offers a related, practical suggestion about making laundry detergent. This is a logical progression within the sub-topic of laundry.\n*   **Turn 6 (B):** Speaker B first acknowledges and responds positively to Speaker A's suggestion about detergent (\"That's a good idea - I'll look into it.\"). Then, Speaker B explicitly signals a return to a previous, uncompleted thought (\"By the way, I was saying I'm really excited about the new countertops.\"). This return to an earlier point (from B's initial long turn, which seemed to have been cut off or sidetracked by A's laundry room question) demonstrates good conversational memory and a desire to complete a thought. It is not an abrupt or irrelevant topic shift, but rather a deliberate and well-signaled re-engagement with an earlier part of the conversation, which maintains overall logical consistency within the broader theme of home renovations.\n\nOverall, the conversation flows logically, and speakers consistently respond to or build upon the previous turn's content.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits excellent interactional fluency with no disruptive elements.\n\n*   **Pauses:**\n    *   [00:01 - 00:02]: A 1-second pause between Speaker A's question and Speaker B's response. This is a natural, small pause, well within acceptable limits.\n    *   [00:20 - 00:21]: A 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn and Speaker A's turn. Again, a natural and acceptable small pause.\n    *   There are no long or prolonged pauses detected that would hinder the flow of conversation.\n*   **Overlaps:**\n    *   [00:13 - 00:13]: Speaker A begins their turn at the exact same timestamp that Speaker B's turn ends. This indicates a very brief, perhaps simultaneous, start. The instructions state, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this overlap perfectly fits the \"brief\" category. It doesn't appear to be a prolonged or disruptive overlapping turn.\n\nThe dialogue proceeds smoothly without any significant breaks in continuity or disruptive speech overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--563",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I'd like to go mountain biking. Where do you go?\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: I go mountain biking a lot in the Santa Cruz mountains. It's really fun. What kind of bike do you usually ride\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but how do you transport your bike to the mountains? Do you have a bike rack or something?\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker B: Yes, I have a bike rack on my car. What kind of bike do you have?\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker A: I have an old mountain bike from when I was a kid.\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker B: Cool. I used to have a nice road bike, but I left it with my parents when I moved to San Francisco.\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker A: Aww that's too bad. Do you still live in San Francisco?\n[00:32 - 00:35] Speaker B: No. I live in Sonoma now. It's a little bit out of the city.\n[00:36 - 00:39] Speaker A: That's a nice area. Are there a lot of good bike trails there?\n[00:40 - 00:42] Speaker B: Hm. There are a few good ones. Are you a bike person?\n[00:43 - 00:46] Speaker A: Yeah I am. I started cycling about four years ago.\n[00:47 - 00:50] Speaker B: That's great. You should try mountain biking sometime.\n[00:50 - 00:56] Speaker A: I'd love to try it. I have a place to go mountain biking, but I can't ride bikes that often.\n[00:57 - 00:58] Speaker B: What do you do for a living?\n[00:59 - 01:01] Speaker A: I'm a project manager for a construction company.\n[01:02 - 01:08] Speaker B: Oh cool. I really like riding my bike around the city. It's so fun to just go for a ride on the bay and enjoy\n[01:08 - 01:16] Speaker A: Speaking of the bay, do you know any good spots there for beginners? I haven't finished asking about the bike trails in Sonoma yet.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\nThe dialogue generally starts with good topic coherence, revolving around mountain biking, locations, and bike types. Speaker A's initial interruption at [00:08] is acknowledged and is still related to the logistics of mountain biking. Speaker B answers and re-introduces the previous question, maintaining a good flow. The conversation then naturally transitions to Speaker B's living situation and Speaker A skillfully brings it back to biking trails in the new location (Sonoma).\n\nHowever, there are significant issues with topic coherence and logical consistency later in the conversation, primarily initiated by Speaker B:\n1.  **[00:57 - 00:58] Speaker B: \"What do you do for a living?\"** This question is an abrupt and unmotivated topic shift. While it might be an attempt to understand why Speaker A \"can't ride bikes that often,\" it's not a logical next step in the conversation and feels out of place. It breaks the flow of discussing biking habits and locations.\n2.  **[01:02 - 01:08] Speaker B: \"Oh cool. I really like riding my bike around the city. It's so fun to just go for a ride on the bay and enjoy\"** This is another abrupt shift, completely abandoning the topic of Speaker A's job. Speaker B pivots to their *own* biking preferences in a new, unintroduced location (\"the bay\"), without connecting to previous topics or Speaker A's expressed constraints. This indicates a self-centered conversational turn that disregards the established conversational path.\n3.  **[01:08 - 01:16] Speaker A's response explicitly highlights the breakdown in coherence:** \"Speaking of the bay, do you know any good spots there for beginners? I haven't finished asking about the bike trails in Sonoma yet.\" Speaker A's direct statement, \"I haven't finished asking about the bike trails in Sonoma yet,\" is a clear meta-commentary on the conversation's lack of coherence, indicating that Speaker B has repeatedly shifted topics before Speaker A's previous questions or points were fully addressed. This demonstrates a failure in the logical consistency and topic coherence on Speaker B's part, as it prevents a natural progression of conversation.\n\nThese abrupt and unmotivated topic shifts, particularly those initiated by Speaker B, constitute significant issues in response relevance and topic coherence, making the dialogue feel disjointed at times.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is generally good, with no prolonged pauses or extended overlaps that would impede communication.\n\n1.  **Overlaps:**\n    *   **[00:08 - 00:15]**: Speaker A starts at 0:08 while Speaker B finishes at 0:09. This is a very brief, one-second overlap, which is a common and acceptable occurrence in natural conversation, often indicating active listening or eagerness to contribute. Speaker A even acknowledges it with \"Sorry to interrupt.\"\n    *   **[01:08 - 01:16]**: Speaker A starts at 0:08 while Speaker B finishes at 0:08. This appears to be a near-simultaneous start/finish, which is also brief and acceptable, indicating a natural turn-taking flow.\n    *   Neither of these overlaps are \"extended\" or harmful to the interaction.\n\n2.  **Pauses:**\n    *   There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The gaps between turns are minimal (e.g., 0:22 to 0:23, 0:35 to 0:36, 0:39 to 0:40, 0:42 to 0:43, 0:56 to 0:57, 0:58 to 0:59, 1:01 to 1:02). These are typically one-second or less pauses, which are natural and contribute to the rhythm of conversation rather than hindering it.\n\nOverall, the conversational flow in terms of timing and turn-taking is very natural and fluent.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--443",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Have you completed the arrangements for the trip yet, Brian?\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker B: I've made the reservations, but there are still some details to make sure. Your plane leaves at 8:30, so I'll pick you up at your house at 6:00.\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker A: 6:00? I'll have to get up in the middle of the night!\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: I'm sorry. You have to check in by 7:00 and I think there will probably be a long line at\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A: Long queue, yes, I get it. But what about my meetings?\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: First, the Managing Director is coming to the airport to meet you.\n[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker A: Good. We'll be able to talk on the way to the factory. What time does the conference start again?\n[00:33 - 00:39] Speaker B: The conference does not open until noon. I'll make sure you have a program before you leave,\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker A: Before work starts? That would be helpful. Thanks, Brian.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B consistently provides direct and logical answers to Speaker A's questions and concerns regarding the trip arrangements. For example, when Speaker A questions the early pick-up time, Speaker B immediately explains the necessity due to check-in and potential lines. Speaker A's interjections are also relevant, either completing Speaker B's thought (\"Long queue, yes, I get it\") or asking follow-up questions directly related to the trip details (meetings, conference start time). The conversation maintains topic coherence throughout, staying focused on the logistics of the upcoming trip. There are no irrelevant tangents or illogical shifts in topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high.\n*   **Pauses:** All pauses between turns are brief (1 second or less), indicating a natural conversational flow without awkward silences. These fall within the acceptable range of \"small pauses.\"\n*   **Overlaps:** There are two instances of overlaps:\n    *   [00:19 - 00:20]: Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap where Speaker A completes Speaker B's thought (\"Long queue, yes, I get it.\") and immediately asks a new, relevant question. This is a common and natural conversational device indicating active listening and engagement, not disruption.\n    *   [00:37 - 00:39]: Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing their sentence. This is a 2-second overlap where Speaker A clarifies/confirms Speaker B's offer (\"Before work starts? That would be helpful.\"). Similar to the first, this is an interactive and non-disruptive overlap, indicating engagement rather than interruption.\nBoth overlaps are brief and functional, contributing to the natural rhythm of the conversation rather than hindering it. They are not \"prolonged overlaps\" that would be considered harmful according to the criteria.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--227",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: How much should I pay?\n[00:01 - 00:13] Speaker B: Let me see. A roasted duck is $25. A plate of pork is $6.50. A bowl of beef is $7. Two bottles of beer are $4. That's a total of $42.50.\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker A: Here is $50. Kee— I was\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B: Oh, sorry sir. We take no tips here.\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A: Oh, I see. But I was going to ask if I could get a receipt for the payment?\n[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker B: Of course, I'll get that for you right away.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:13] Speaker A's question \"How much should I pay?\" is directly and accurately answered by Speaker B, who provides a detailed breakdown and the total cost.** This is perfectly relevant and logically consistent.\n2.  **[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker A's \"Here is $50. Kee— I was\" is interrupted by Speaker B's \"Oh, sorry sir. We take no tips here.\"** Speaker B's response is based on an immediate, albeit incorrect, inference from Speaker A's partial utterance (\"Kee—\"). In the context of a payment, inferring \"Keep the change\" or an offer of a tip is a very common and logical assumption to make. Therefore, Speaker B's response, while preemptive and based on an assumption, is logically consistent with their *interpretation* of the situation. This demonstrates a natural, human-like interaction where one anticipates.\n3.  **[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker A clarifies, \"Oh, I see. But I was going to ask if I could get a receipt for the payment?\"** This clarifies the previous misunderstanding. Speaker A's \"Oh, I see\" shows they understood Speaker B's reasoning for declining the \"tip.\" The subsequent request for a receipt is a natural follow-up to payment.\n4.  **[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker B's \"Of course, I'll get that for you right away\" is a direct, helpful, and highly relevant response to Speaker A's clarified request.**\nOverall, the dialogue maintains strong topic coherence. The slight misunderstanding is handled gracefully and quickly resolved, without derailing the conversation's core purpose (payment and associated actions).\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits excellent interactional fluency with minimal disruptions.\n1.  **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. All transitions are immediate (e.g., 0:01-0:01, 0:19-0:19, 0:24-0:24), indicating a smooth and responsive conversation flow.\n2.  **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap: Speaker B's turn [0:16 - 0:19] begins while Speaker A's turn [0:14 - 0:17] is still active. The overlap duration is from 0:16 to 0:17, which is only 1 second. As per the instructions, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This short overlap, while an interruption, is a common feature of natural, conversational speech, especially when one speaker anticipates the other's meaning, as Speaker B does here. It does not hinder the overall flow or understanding; instead, it contributes to the naturalness of the exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--566",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, I was wondering if you'd like to try that new action role-playing game.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: That sounds fun! But I probably won't have time to play for a little while.\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: No problem! But I've been itching to play it. I'm trying to beat the story mode.\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: Oh that sounds cool! Let me know when you get to a harder level, maybe\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker A: Actually, I wanted to ask, do you have a favorite game to play?\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker B: No, but I did get a new book to read this week. It's a collection of science fiction stories by Isaac Asimov.\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker A: Oh, I loved the Foundation trilogy! The Foundation series is one of my favorites. Have you read it?\n[00:33 - 00:35] Speaker B: No, I'll have to add it to my to-read list!\n[00:36 - 00:40] Speaker A: That's a great idea! What other books have you been reading lately?\n[00:40 - 00:44] Speaker B: I've been reading a lot of books by John Green. His work is very good!\n[00:44 - 00:48] Speaker A: I agree! Are you reading a new book by him?\n[00:48 - 00:53] Speaker B: No, but it's by the same author. It's titled The Fault in Our Stars. Have\n[00:52 - 00:58] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I just remembered, did you mention which John Green books you have read before?\n[00:58 - 01:01] Speaker B: I've read a few of his other books. I don't remember their names though.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally exhibits good response relevance and logical consistency, with participants responding to each other's statements and questions.\n\n*   **Initial Topic (Games):** Speaker A initiates a game topic (0:00). Speaker B responds relevantly (0:04) and Speaker A continues the game discussion (0:08), followed by Speaker B (0:13). This part shows strong relevance.\n*   **Topic Shift by Speaker B (0:20-0:26):** Speaker A asks about a \"favorite game\" (0:16). Speaker B responds \"No,\" which is logically consistent, but then immediately introduces a new topic: a book by Isaac Asimov (\"but I did get a new book to read this week\"). This is a clear, albeit common in natural conversation, shift in topic coherence. While not a logical inconsistency, it breaks the immediate topical thread initiated by Speaker A.\n*   **Adaptation by Speaker A:** Speaker A skillfully adapts to Speaker B's new topic, discussing Asimov's \"Foundation trilogy\" (0:27). This shows good conversational adaptability and maintains relevance to Speaker B's *new* subject.\n*   **Continued Book Topic:** The conversation then coherently continues on books, with Speaker A asking for more examples (0:36), and Speaker B introducing John Green (0:40). Speaker A follows up appropriately (0:44).\n*   **Interruption/Backtrack by Speaker A (0:52-0:58):** Speaker B is in the process of naming a specific John Green book (0:48-0:53) when Speaker A interrupts, acknowledging the interruption, and asks a retrospective question about previously mentioned John Green books (\"did you mention which John Green books you have read before?\"). While the content is related to the broader \"John Green\" topic, it disrupts the flow of Speaker B's current statement about \"The Fault in Our Stars\" and pulls the conversation backward rather than forward. This is a minor issue in immediate topic coherence.\n\nOverall, while there's a noticeable topic shift initiated by Speaker B and a minor interruption/backtrack by Speaker A, these issues are not \"significant\" to the point of breaking logical consistency or making the conversation difficult to follow. Speaker A demonstrates good adaptability. The dialogue remains largely coherent, albeit with a couple of natural, minor deviations.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue exhibits generally good interactional fluency, with only minor timing variations that are acceptable in natural conversation.\n\n*   **Brief Overlaps:**\n    *   There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker B (finishing at 0:17) and Speaker A (starting at 0:16).\n    *   There is another 1-second overlap between Speaker B (finishing at 0:53) and Speaker A (starting at 0:52). In this instance, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the overlap/interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt\").\n    *   According to the prompt, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" Both instances fall into this category and do not significantly harm the flow or clarity.\n\n*   **Short Pauses:**\n    *   There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn (0:20-0:26) and Speaker A's turn (0:27-0:33).\n    *   There is another 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn (0:33-0:35) and Speaker A's turn (0:36-0:40).\n    *   These are short pauses, not \"prolonged pauses\" that would be considered harmful. They do not disrupt the conversational rhythm in a negative way.\n\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would be detrimental to the interaction. The pacing feels relatively natural for a casual conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--202",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Good morning, I wonder whether you have got an answer from your superior.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yes, we had a meeting about it yesterday afternoon.\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker A: What's the status on\n[00:08 - 00:17] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but before you ask, I just wanted to clarify something about the delivery timeline. We decided that we could agree to your price, but we are a bit worried about the slow delivery.\n[00:18 - 00:22] Speaker A: Let me see. I quoted your delivery in three months, didn't I?\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker B: Yes, but we hope that the wool could reach us as soon as possible.\n[00:26 - 00:36] Speaker A: I thought you would. So I rang Auckland last night. As you are our biggest customer, they agreed to ship the order on the first vessel available that will leave Auckland next month.\n[00:37 - 00:44] Speaker B: Good, if you agree we'll draft the agreement right away and sign it then. Oh, by the way, what was the answer you were about to mention earlier?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** The conversation flows logically from Speaker A's initial query about an answer from a superior to Speaker B's update on a meeting, then to the core negotiation points (price and delivery timeline). Speaker B proactively brings up the delivery concern, which Speaker A effectively addresses with a pre-prepared solution. This demonstrates foresight and logical progression. Finally, Speaker B's return to the initial, interrupted question shows strong recall and a desire to complete the conversational thread, maintaining logical consistency.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The speakers maintain strong topic coherence throughout. The primary topic revolves around a business negotiation, specifically the terms of a deal (price and delivery). Even when Speaker B interrupts Speaker A, it is to immediately bring up a critical, highly relevant point for the negotiation (\"delivery timeline\"). The conversation never deviates from the main subject, and all turns contribute directly to advancing the understanding and resolution of the deal.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent fluency.\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There is one instance of an overlap at [00:08 - 00:17] where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. However, this is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Sorry to interrupt\") and is brief, not extended. This type of interruption is common and natural in dynamic conversations, often used to introduce an urgent or highly relevant point immediately. It does not disrupt the flow negatively but rather shows active participation and a desire to efficiently address a key concern. It's a natural conversational maneuver rather than a problematic prolonged overlap.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The transitions between speakers are smooth and timely, indicating responsive and engaged participants. The slight pauses observed are typical for natural conversation and do not hinder the flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--529",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I love cooking. What's your favorite meal to make?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Me too! What's your favorite thing to cook?\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: I love baking breads - like pretzels or a nice, dense rye.\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: Pretzels! What a great idea! I never would have thought to do that. Do you have a special recipe\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but do you bake these often? I'm curious because I've always wanted to try making pretzels myself.\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker B: Yes, I do bake them often. I have a recipe. What kind of flour do you use for your pretzels?\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker A: I don't know - whatever is in my pantry.\n[00:32 - 00:35] Speaker B: OK. Do you like salt and malt, or just plain pretzels\n[00:34 - 00:41] Speaker A: Oh, I definitely prefer malt! By the way, I was going to ask, do you have any tips for getting the perfect texture?\n[00:41 - 00:46] Speaker B: Malt! I can't believe I never thought of adding malt to pretzels! Sure, I can share some tips.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speakers generally respond directly to the preceding turn's content, maintaining a clear conversational flow about cooking and, more specifically, baking pretzels.\n- Speaker A initiates the conversation about cooking.\n- Speaker B responds by asking A's preference, which, while not a direct answer to A's initial question, is a common conversational turn-taking strategy and keeps the topic relevant.\n- Speaker A then shares their preference, leading to a focused discussion on pretzels.\n- The subsequent turns from both speakers consistently revolve around pretzel-making, recipes, ingredients (flour, salt, malt), and techniques (texture tips).\n- Even when Speaker A cuts in at [00:15 - 00:22], their question \"do you bake these often?\" is directly related to Speaker B's previous mention of pretzels.\n- Similarly, Speaker A's \"By the way, I was going to ask, do you have any tips for getting the perfect texture?\" at [00:34 - 00:41] is a natural follow-up question related to the topic of baking pretzels.\nThere are no instances of abrupt topic shifts or illogical responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  At [00:15 - 00:22], Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence at [00:11 - 00:16]. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A explicitly says \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating awareness and attempting to take the floor. This is a common and acceptable brief overlap.\n2.  At [00:34 - 00:41], Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence at [00:32 - 00:35]. This is also a 1-second overlap. Again, this is a brief and natural occurrence in conversational turn-taking, where one speaker anticipates the end of the other's turn.\nThe evaluation criteria state that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" Both overlaps are brief (1 second) and do not appear to be \"prolonged\" or disruptive to the conversation's flow or comprehension. There are no noticeable long pauses between speaker turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 5
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--401",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hello. Tenants Advocacy Resource Center.\n[00:02 - 00:10] Speaker B: Hello. I'm having a problem with my house owner. The House owner is a nice enough guy, but he and I just can't seem to agree on repair costs.\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker A: Has he been unwilling to make repairs?\n[00:13 - 00:31] Speaker B: It's not that he's unwilling. He just takes too long. When I first moved in, the heater was broken and it took him 3 months to fix it and last month was my thirtieth birthday. My friends threw me a surprise party. They showed up with a ton of food and lots of beers and they even had a rock and roll band. It turned into an all night party and I had\n[00:31 - 00:33] Speaker A: And your neighbors started complaining about the noise?\n[00:34 - 00:44] Speaker B: No, everyone in the building was there. It was a great party. Unfortunately, some people accidentally broke the living room window. Next day, I gotta repair person to come over to fix the window. Since he was already here, I had him fix the broken washing machine, which I had been complaining to the house owner about for over 2 months. Then last week, I mailed the money for the house, not including the repair costs. But this morning, my house owner called me angrily and said that he wouldn't pay for the repairs. That doesn't seem fair. What should I do?\n[00:45 - 00:54] Speaker A: Before we get into that, you mentioned the heater earlier. Did the landlord eventually cover the cost of that repair, or was it something you had to handle yourself?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nSpeaker A demonstrates excellent response relevance throughout the dialogue.\n1.  **[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker A: Has he been unwilling to make repairs?** This is a direct and logical follow-up question to Speaker B's initial statement about not agreeing on repair costs, seeking clarification on the nature of the disagreement.\n2.  **[00:31 - 00:33] Speaker A: And your neighbors started complaining about the noise?** Speaker B was rambling about a party that seemed irrelevant to the repair costs. Speaker A's interjection is a very natural and intelligent attempt to find the relevance of the party by anticipating a common consequence (noise complaints) that could lead to a landlord/tenant dispute. This shows active listening and an attempt to maintain topic coherence by connecting the seemingly unrelated anecdote back to potential housing issues.\n3.  **[00:45 - 00:54] Speaker A: Before we get into that, you mentioned the heater earlier. Did the landlord eventually cover the cost of that repair, or was it something you had to handle yourself?** This response is highly relevant and demonstrates strong logical consistency. Instead of immediately addressing Speaker B's urgent \"What should I do?\" regarding the current window/washing machine issue, Speaker A wisely circles back to an *earlier* instance of the landlord's handling of repairs (the heater). This is crucial for an advocacy center to understand the landlord's pattern of behavior and establish a more complete picture of the situation before providing advice. It shows a systematic approach to gathering information, which is a hallmark of good problem-solving.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n1.  **Pauses:** The pauses between turns are consistently short (typically 1 second, e.g., between 0:12 and 0:13, 0:33 and 0:34, 0:44 and 0:45), which is natural and indicative of smooth turn-taking. There are no instances of long or awkward silences that would disrupt the flow of conversation.\n2.  **Overlaps:** There are no explicit indications of extended overlaps in the transcript. Speaker A's interjection at [00:31] \"And your neighbors started complaining about the noise?\" occurs precisely as Speaker B concludes a thought (\"I had\"). This is a brief, purposeful interruption/anticipation, common in natural conversation, and not an \"extended overlap\" that would hinder communication. It serves to guide the conversation and seek clarification, rather than being disruptive.\nOverall, the dialogue flows naturally without any significant fluency issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--83700",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: So what's this document that you wanted to show me?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: It's the most recent one. I've been watching you for weeks, and I trust your judgment\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Wait, what do you mean you've been watching me? Is there something specific you've noticed?\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: I just wanted to make sure you were ready for this. The document says that the city is going to be evacuated soon.\n[00:17 - 00:18] Speaker A: What? Why?\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker B: There's been a lot of talk lately about an impending attack. People are scared. The government is advising everyone to stay calm\n[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker A: An attack? Are there any details on who is behind this or how imminent it is?\n[00:30 - 00:37] Speaker B: The document doesn't specify who, just that it's serious enough for the government to take this step. But I haven't mentioned where we might go yet...\n[00:38 - 00:40] Speaker A: Right, where would we even go?\n[00:41 - 00:44] Speaker B: I don't know. Maybe the countryside? Somewhere safe.\n[00:44 - 00:48] Speaker A: This is crazy. I can't just leave my life here behind.\n[00:49 - 00:52] Speaker B: I know it's hard, but we have to do what's best for our safety.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\nSpeaker A's initial question about the document is directly addressed by Speaker B.\nSpeaker B's slightly unusual comment about \"watching\" Speaker A is immediately picked up by A, demonstrating attentiveness and leading to B's explanation connecting it to the gravity of the document's content.\nThe conversation then flows naturally from the announcement of evacuation to the \"why\" (impending attack), then to details about the attack, then to where they would go, and finally to Speaker A's emotional reaction and Speaker B's reassurance.\nEach response builds upon the previous turn, maintaining a clear and coherent narrative. There are no sudden, irrelevant topic shifts or illogical statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good.\nThere are a few brief pauses (1 second) between turns (e.g., A's first turn to B's first, B's second to A's third, etc.), which are natural in conversation and fall under \"small pauses\" deemed acceptable.\nThere are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  `[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A:` overlaps with `[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B:` for 1 second. Speaker A starts at 00:05 while Speaker B finishes at 00:06. This is Speaker A interrupting Speaker B's slightly unsettling statement, which is a natural and brief reaction in a real conversation.\n2.  `[00:25 - 00:29] Speaker A:` overlaps with `[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker B:` for 1 second. Speaker A starts at 00:25 while Speaker B finishes at 00:26. Again, this is an interruption from Speaker A, reacting to the severe information about an \"impending attack.\"\nBoth overlaps are brief (1 second) and represent natural interruptions driven by the content's urgency or unexpectedness, rather than prolonged, harmful overlapping turns where speakers are fighting for the floor. They contribute to the naturalness of the dialogue rather than detracting from it.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--89040",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Wow, I can finally taste my food!\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: That's because you're finally adding salt to it.\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Yeah, I never realized how important salt was for flavor. It makes all the difference in the overall taste\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker B: Speaking of which, have you tried using other seasonings too? Salt is great, but combining it with herbs and spices can really elevate your dishes.\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker A: Good point! I should definitely experiment more. But I was saying, it makes all the difference in the world.\n[00:26 - 00:34] Speaker B: I know, right? Salt is essential for bringing out the natural flavors in food. Without it, everything would taste bland and unappetizing, like\n[00:32 - 00:41] Speaker A: Boring, exactly! I can't believe I went so long without using salt. From now on, I'm going to make sure to use it in everything I cook.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly relates to the previous one, building on the topic of salt's importance in food.\n- Speaker B's initial response explains Speaker A's newfound ability to taste food.\n- Speaker A elaborates on their realization about salt's importance.\n- Speaker B expands the discussion to other seasonings, a natural progression from salt.\n- Speaker A acknowledges Speaker B's point and then re-emphasizes their original strong feeling about salt's impact, which is coherent.\n- Speaker B agrees with Speaker A and further details salt's essential role.\n- Speaker A completes Speaker B's thought (\"like boring\") and reiterates their commitment to using salt.\nThe topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on the transformative effect of salt (and by extension, seasoning) on food flavor. There are no irrelevant tangents or illogical leaps.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent fluency.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns; transitions are immediate or involve very brief, natural pauses (e.g., 1 second before Speaker B's turn at 00:26).\n- There is one instance of overlap between Speaker B and Speaker A from [00:32 - 00:34]. Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence (\"like\"). Speaker A completes Speaker B's thought by saying \"Boring, exactly!\". This is a very common and natural conversational phenomenon that indicates high engagement and shared understanding, rather than a disruption. It is a brief, functional overlap, not a prolonged or harmful one, and thus falls within the acceptable range of \"brief overlaps.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--19006",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I don't like it when it's dark in here.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: What are you afraid of?\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: I don't know. I just get this feeling that something is going to happen, like\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Jump out at you? I get that. Sometimes our minds play tricks on us in the dark.\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker A: There's nothing here that can hurt you.\n[00:15 - 00:17] Speaker B: I know, but I can't help the way I feel.\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker A: Do you want me to turn on the light?\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker B: No, that would make it worse. Then I would feel like I'm being watched by\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: Watched? I understand. How about we leave the door open a little bit so some light can come in?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial question \"What are you afraid of?\" directly follows Speaker A's complaint about darkness. Speaker A's explanation of feeling \"something is going to happen\" is picked up by Speaker B, who not only completes A's thought (\"Jump out at you?\") but also empathizes and offers a common psychological explanation. Speaker A's subsequent reassurance \"There's nothing here that can hurt you\" is a logical attempt to comfort. Speaker B's response, acknowledging the truth but emphasizing the feeling (\"I know, but I can't help the way I feel\"), is realistic and consistent with the established fear. Speaker A's offer to \"turn on the light\" is a direct and logical attempt at a solution. Speaker B's refusal and explanation (\"No, that would make it worse. Then I would feel like I'm being watched by-\") leads to Speaker A's excellent active listening (\"Watched? I understand.\") and a refined, logical alternative solution (\"How about we leave the door open a little bit so some light can come in?\"). The conversation consistently stays on topic, and each turn builds coherently on the previous one, showing deep understanding and responsiveness between the speakers.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two very brief overlaps:\n1.  [00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: starts while Speaker A is saying \"like\". This is a quick anticipation/completion of thought, lasting less than a second (00:07-00:08), which is a natural part of engaged conversation and falls under \"brief overlaps are acceptable\".\n2.  [00:24 - 00:29] Speaker A: starts immediately after Speaker B's \"by\". This is also a very brief overlap, indicating high responsiveness and understanding, again lasting less than a second (00:24-00:24).\nThere are no extended overlaps. Pauses between turns are short (e.g., 1 second between [00:11]-[00:12] and [00:17]-[00:18]), which are natural and allow for turn-taking without feeling awkward or prolonged. No long pauses are detected. The rhythm of the conversation feels very natural and engaging.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--271",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Are you paid on a commission or salary basis now?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm paid on a salary.\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker A: What's your monthly salary?\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: At present I get 1,800 yuan per month.\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker A: How much do you hope to get a month here?\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: That's not the problem I care about. You can decide on my expectations based\n[00:17 - 00:26] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but I want to make sure we're on the same page. Are you saying you're flexible with the salary as long as it matches your experience?\n[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker B: Exactly, I believe my experience and capacity should guide the decision.\n[00:31 - 00:44] Speaker A: If we decide to hire you, we'd pay you two thousand and five hundred yuan a month at the start. You can have Saturdays and Sundays off. Besides, you may have a paid month holiday every year. How do you think about it?\n[00:44 - 00:55] Speaker B: That sounds reasonable. But just to clarify, when you mentioned deciding based on my capacity and experience earlier, I was going to add that I'm also looking for opportunities for growth within the company.\n[00:55 - 01:01] Speaker A: Absolutely, we value growth and development here, and there will be plenty of opportunities for you to advance.\n[01:02 - 01:05] Speaker B: Thank you, Mr. Brown. I really appreciate your assistance.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout. Speaker A's initial questions about salary are direct and appropriate for an interview setting. Speaker B's response at [00:13 - 00:17], \"That's not the problem I care about. You can decide on my expectations based,\" is not a direct answer but a strategic and relevant one, indicating flexibility and shifting the focus to their value. Speaker A immediately picks up on this nuanced response, seeking clarification at [00:17 - 00:26] to ensure understanding, which demonstrates excellent logical consistency and active listening. Speaker B confirms this interpretation, maintaining coherence. The subsequent offer from Speaker A at [00:31 - 00:44] is a direct consequence of this clarified stance. Speaker B's acceptance at [00:44 - 00:55] also ties back to their earlier statement about \"capacity and experience,\" adding the important aspect of \"growth opportunities,\" which is a logical elaboration on their previous point rather than a deviation. Speaker A addresses this point directly, ensuring topic coherence. The conversation flows naturally from salary expectations to job offer specifics and career development, all relevant aspects of a job interview.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected in the transcript. The pauses between turns are consistently brief (1 second or less), which is natural and allows for smooth turn-taking. At [00:17], Speaker A says \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating a brief overlap with Speaker B's preceding statement. However, this is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker A and serves the purpose of immediate clarification, which is a natural and acceptable conversational behavior, falling under \"brief overlaps... are acceptable\" criteria. It does not hinder the flow or understanding of the conversation, but rather enhances it by ensuring mutual understanding.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--75685",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Rowyn. I have something for you.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: What is it?\n[00:04 - 00:04] Speaker A: A balloon.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: Oh, thank you. It's really red and has a shiny surface\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but does it have helium? I was thinking of tying it to my chair.\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker B: No, it doesn't have helium, but it does have a smiley face on it.\n[00:17 - 00:18] Speaker A: You're welcome.\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker B: So, what's your favorite color?\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker A: Hmm, that's tough. I think I would have to say blue, but\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: Green? I had a feeling you'd say that.\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker A: Yeah, it's green. It's just a really pretty color and it always makes me feel happy when I see it.\n[00:34 - 00:36] Speaker B: That makes sense. I like green too.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence overall.\n1.  **Balloon Discussion:** The initial exchange about the balloon is perfectly coherent. Speaker B's \"What is it?\" naturally follows Speaker A's \"I have something for you.\" Speaker A's description (\"A balloon\") leads to Speaker B's acknowledgement and description (\"Oh, thank you. It's really red and has a shiny surface\"). Speaker A's follow-up question about helium is highly relevant to a balloon, especially with the stated intention of tying it to a chair. Speaker B's answer is direct and adds another relevant detail.\n2.  **\"You're Welcome\"**: Speaker A's \"You're welcome\" at [00:17 - 00:18] is slightly delayed, as Speaker B's \"thank you\" was at [00:05 - 00:08]. However, it's not illogical or inconsistent; it can be interpreted as Speaker A circling back to acknowledge the initial gratitude after the brief digression about the balloon's properties.\n3.  **Topic Shift**: Speaker B's transition to \"So, what's your favorite color?\" at [00:18 - 00:20] is an abrupt topic shift. While common in natural, casual conversation, it lacks a smooth segue from the previous topic. However, it doesn't indicate a *lack* of logical consistency within the dialogue as a whole, merely an unannounced shift.\n4.  **Favorite Color Discussion**: The subsequent discussion about favorite colors is logically consistent. Speaker A starts to answer (\"blue, but...\"), Speaker B guesses \"Green?\" and Speaker A confirms \"Yeah, it's green,\" providing a brief explanation. Although Speaker A's initial \"blue, but\" followed by confirmation of \"green\" is a bit ambiguous (implying a change of mind or an initial incorrect thought corrected by B), the exchange ultimately leads to a clear and coherent answer regarding Speaker A's favorite color. Speaker B's final remark is a natural closing to this mini-topic.\n\nIn summary, despite a slightly awkward \"you're welcome\" and an abrupt topic shift, the core content remains logically consistent and topics are coherent within their respective segments. No significant issues detected.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with only brief, acceptable instances of overlap and short pauses.\n1.  **Pauses**: All pauses between turns ([00:03-00:04], [00:12-00:13], [00:16-00:17], [00:20-00:21], [00:33-00:34]) are 1 second in duration. These are very short and fall well within the \"small pauses\" deemed acceptable by the criteria. They contribute to a natural conversational rhythm rather than indicating hesitation or communication breakdown.\n2.  **Overlaps**:\n    *   **Overlap 1**: Speaker A starts at [00:07] while Speaker B is still speaking until [00:08] ([00:05 - 00:08]). This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A explicitly says, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" acknowledging the overlap, which mitigates any negative impact on fluency. This is a \"brief overlap\" as per the criteria.\n    *   **Overlap 2**: Speaker B starts at [00:24] while Speaker A is still speaking until [00:25] ([00:21 - 00:25]). This is also a 1-second overlap, causing Speaker A's sentence (\"blue, but\") to be cut off. However, the conversation recovers immediately as Speaker A confirms Speaker B's guess. This is also a \"brief overlap\" and typical of natural, enthusiastic conversation where one speaker anticipates or interjects.\n\nNeither of the overlaps are \"extended\" or \"prolonged,\" and they do not significantly disrupt the flow or understanding of the conversation. The pauses are consistently short. Therefore, interactional fluency is appropriate and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--70286",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Why is this place such a mess? It's so cluttered and the floors are sticky.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: I don't know. Maybe the store is just old and needs to be renovated to\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: You know, I was thinking the same thing. But still, shouldn't they at least try to keep it somewhat clean?\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker B: Yeah, that must be it. It's just so dirty. I can't believe people shop here.\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker A: Well, it is a discount store. People are probably just looking for a good deal and don't care as much\n[00:23 - 00:31] Speaker B: True, but even if it's a discount store, a little cleanliness can go a long way in keeping customers. I wouldn't want to shop here, though. It's too messy for me.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A introduces the topic of a messy store. Speaker B provides a logical response by suggesting renovation as a solution. Speaker A then acknowledges B's point and further elaborates on the need for basic cleanliness. This back-and-forth continues naturally, with Speaker B agreeing and expressing disbelief, Speaker A offering a reason (discount store), and Speaker B concluding with a balanced perspective on cleanliness even for discount stores. The topic coherence is maintained throughout, with no irrelevant statements or abrupt topic shifts. Each turn builds upon the previous one in a logical and coherent manner.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two brief overlaps detected:\n1.  Speaker A starts speaking at `00:07` while Speaker B's turn ends at `00:08`. This is a 1-second overlap.\n2.  Speaker B starts speaking at `00:23` while Speaker A's turn ends at `00:24`. This is a 1-second overlap.\nThese are considered brief and natural in conversational dynamics, indicating active listening and turn-taking without significant disruption.\nThere is one small pause detected:\n1.  Speaker A's turn ends at `00:13` and Speaker B's turn starts at `00:14`. This is a 1-second pause.\nThis is also a small and acceptable pause. No extended overlaps or long pauses are present that would disrupt the flow of the conversation. The dialogue flows naturally, resembling a typical unscripted conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--555",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Do you know much about red pandas?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: I've never heard of them, but I'm sure they're amazing!\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: I thought they were pretty cute. They're not domesticated. They're endangered, but they can be quite playful and\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker B: Oh that's awesome. I'm actually a big animal lover. Do you like science?\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker A: I like learning about science, but I'm not a huge science buff like I am with art.\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B: I'm really interested in how the brain works. Have you ever heard of mirror neurons?\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker A: Oh wow, that sounds fascinating. I wonder if we have mirror neurons in our brains that\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but I just realized we didn't finish talking about red pandas being playful. Can you tell me more about that?\n[00:38 - 00:48] Speaker A: Sure, they can be quite playful, especially when they are young. Now, about mirror neurons, I think we probably do have them in our brains. They're pretty cool.\n[00:48 - 00:49] Speaker B: What else do you like to do?\n[00:50 - 00:55] Speaker A: I like to watch documentaries about different animal habitats. I'm also a big soccer fan!\n[00:56 - 00:58] Speaker B: What kind of soccer do you like to play?\n[00:58 - 01:00] Speaker A: I like to play indoor soccer.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits some issues with topic coherence and logical consistency. Speaker B initiates several abrupt topic shifts:\n- At [0:11], Speaker B abruptly shifts from red pandas to \"Do you like science?\" after Speaker A was still mid-sentence. While the \"animal lover\" comment provides a slight bridge, the jump to science is jarring and unexpected.\n- At [0:31], Speaker B acknowledges cutting in to bring back the red panda topic, which highlights an earlier failure in topic management. However, Speaker A then attempts to answer the red panda question and immediately jumps back to mirror neurons within the same turn [0:38], making the conversation feel rushed and less natural.\n- At [0:48], Speaker B again initiates an abrupt topic shift from specific discussions (red pandas, mirror neurons) to a general \"What else do you like to do?\", without fully concluding the previous topics.\n\nWhile some topic changes are natural in conversation, these feel forced or poorly managed, disrupting the logical flow. Thus, response relevance is not consistently appropriate or natural.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates significant issues with interactional fluency, specifically regarding overlapping turns and interruptions:\n- At [0:11], Speaker B begins speaking simultaneously with Speaker A, cutting off Speaker A's sentence (\"playful and\"). This is an instance of an overlapping turn that disrupts the flow.\n- At [0:31], Speaker B explicitly says, \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating a direct interruption and an overlapping turn. Speaker A's sentence (\"mirror neurons in our brains that\") is again cut off. This is a clear example of a harmful overlapping turn, as confirmed by Speaker B's apology and the incomplete utterance from Speaker A.\n\nThese instances of Speaker B cutting off Speaker A, leaving sentences unfinished, are not brief or acceptable overlaps. They are disruptive overlapping turns, which are explicitly stated as harmful in the evaluation criteria. There are no prolonged pauses, but the frequent and disruptive overlaps significantly detract from the fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--11526",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hey.\n[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker B: Hey, how are you?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker A: I'm good. Just a little stressed with\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Tired? Yeah, you look it. You want to go lie down?\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker A: Yeah, I think I will. Thanks.\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker B: No problem. Let me know if you need anything.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance throughout.\n- Speaker B's initial \"Hey, how are you?\" is a perfectly relevant and standard follow-up to Speaker A's greeting.\n- Speaker A's \"I'm good. Just a little stressed with\" directly answers the question about their well-being.\n- Speaker B's interjection \"Tired? Yeah, you look it. You want to go lie down?\" is highly relevant and demonstrates strong logical consistency and empathy. Even though Speaker A's sentence was incomplete, Speaker B accurately infers A's condition (tiredness often accompanies stress and can be visible) and offers a direct, supportive solution. This shows excellent topic coherence and understanding.\n- Speaker A's \"Yeah, I think I will. Thanks.\" is a clear and grateful acceptance of Speaker B's suggestion.\n- Speaker B's final \"No problem. Let me know if you need anything.\" is a relevant and polite closing, reinforcing their offer of support.\nThe conversation maintains logical consistency and topic coherence flawlessly.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits very natural fluency.\n- There is a brief, natural overlap at the very beginning [0:00-0:01] where Speaker B begins speaking just as Speaker A finishes their greeting. This is acceptable.\n- There are small, acceptable pauses of 1 second each between turns at [0:01-0:02] and [0:10-0:11].\n- The most significant point for evaluation is the overlapping turn by Speaker B from [0:04-0:07]. Speaker B interjects (\"Tired? Yeah, you look it. You want to go lie down?\") while Speaker A is still speaking (\"stressed with\"). This is a prolonged overlapping turn (approximately 3 seconds). According to the guidelines, \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" However, in the context of this specific conversation, this overlap is not \"harmful\" in the sense of disrupting communication or creating awkwardness. Instead, it serves as an empathetic and highly engaged response, where Speaker B anticipates Speaker A's likely sentiment and offers immediate support. This type of interruption is common and natural in close, informal conversations and contributes to the perceived naturalness and rapport between the speakers rather than detracting from it. Therefore, while technically a prolonged overlap, its function here is appropriate and natural, aligning with the criterion of \"consistently appropriate and natural\" for excellent interactional fluency. It does not represent a significant issue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--61568",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: Hi Blakeley! I saw that you were starting a new project and I wanted to give you some advice on which program to consider, especially\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Oh, thanks! I was actually just about to ask for suggestions. Do you have a specific program in mind?\n[00:12 - 00:20] Speaker A: Well, for your project, I would recommend using Adobe Photoshop. It's easy to use and has a lot of features that will allow you\n[00:19 - 00:27] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but I'm a bit concerned about the learning curve. Do you think it's manageable for someone who's not very experienced with design software?\n[00:27 - 00:36] Speaker A: Absolutely, it's very user-friendly even for beginners. Plus, there are plenty of tutorials available online to help you get started.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B's initial response \"Oh, thanks! I was actually just about to ask for suggestions. Do you have a specific program in mind?\" is perfectly aligned with Speaker A's opening offer of advice. Speaker A then recommends Adobe Photoshop, which directly answers Speaker B's question. Speaker B's follow-up, \"Sorry to jump in, but I'm a bit concerned about the learning curve. Do you think it's manageable for someone who's not very experienced with design software?\" directly addresses a potential issue with the suggested program, demonstrating logical consistency and topic coherence. Finally, Speaker A's last response \"Absolutely, it's very user-friendly even for beginners. Plus, there are plenty of tutorials available online to help you get started.\" directly addresses Speaker B's concern and provides reassurance, maintaining a coherent and relevant exchange throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are two brief overlaps detected: [00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B overlaps with [00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A for 1 second, and [00:19 - 00:27] Speaker B overlaps with [00:12 - 00:20] Speaker A for 1 second. These are very brief and natural, indicative of active listening and quick responses rather than disruptive turn-taking issues. In the second overlap, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry to jump in\"), which further indicates a natural, albeit slightly eager, turn-taking. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, contributing to the natural flow and rhythm of the conversation. The dialogue feels spontaneous and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--39040",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, what's up?\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Not much. How are you?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm alright. Just been busy lately.\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker B: We haven't seen you in a while. What have you been up to?\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker A: Just been busy with work and trying to\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: Work is good, but you should make time for your friends and family too. We miss you.\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker A: I know, I'm sorry. I've just been really busy and stressed out lately.\n[00:19 - 00:24] Speaker B: What's going on? You can tell us anything, you know that. We're here for you no matter what.\n[00:24 - 00:38] Speaker A: It's just...I feel like I've failed everyone. I was supposed to be the one who made something of himself and now I'm barely scraping by. I don't want to burden anyone with my problems though so I've just been avoiding talking about\n[00:38 - 00:47] Speaker B: Lynzee, we're not judging you or anything like that. Everyone has their own struggles and we just want to help you through yours if we can. There's nothing wrong with asking for help when you need it.\n[00:48 - 00:56] Speaker A: I know, it's just hard for me to admit that I need help. I'm so used to being the one who helps others that it feels weird asking for help myself.\n[00:57 - 01:06] Speaker B: We understand. But like we said, we're here for you no matter what. So please, don't be afraid to reach out to us when you need someone to talk to. We love you and only want the best for you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate excellent relevance and logical consistency. The conversation naturally progresses from an initial greeting and check-in to a deeper, more personal discussion about Speaker A's struggles.\n- Speaker B's follow-up questions (\"What have you been up to?\", \"What's going on?\") are direct and appropriate responses to Speaker A's initial statements about being busy and stressed.\n- Speaker A's revelations about feeling like a failure and struggling are direct answers to Speaker B's invitation to open up.\n- Speaker B's empathetic and reassuring responses (\"we're not judging you\", \"we just want to help you\", \"we're here for you no matter what\") are perfectly tailored to Speaker A's vulnerability and self-doubt.\n- Speaker A's admission about the difficulty of asking for help is a logical continuation, explaining the internal conflict behind their avoidance.\n- The entire dialogue maintains a consistent topic: Speaker A's well-being and the supportive role of Speaker B. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant remarks.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one instance of an overlap: `[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B:` overlaps `[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker A:`. This overlap lasts for approximately 1 second (from 00:10 to 00:11). This is a brief overlap, which the instructions state is acceptable and often natural in conversation, indicating active listening or a slight eagerness to respond. It is not an \"extended overlap.\"\n- **Pauses:** All pauses between speaker turns are very brief (1 second or less), for example:\n    - `[00:02]` Speaker B ends, `[00:03]` Speaker A begins (1-second pause).\n    - `[00:05]` Speaker A ends, `[00:06]` Speaker B begins (1-second pause).\n    - `[00:47]` Speaker B ends, `[00:48]` Speaker A begins (1-second pause).\nThese short pauses contribute to a natural conversational rhythm and do not indicate any breakdown in communication or awkward silence. There are no \"long pauses\" detected.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--140475",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:11] Speaker A: I was just sitting in the living room when I saw the news report about the nuclear explosion. I can't believe something like that could happen. I'm feeling really lucky that we're not closer to the impact zone,\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker B: I know, it's just so scary. But do you think we should be doing something right now, like preparing in case the situation gets worse?\n[00:18 - 00:36] Speaker A: Absolutely. I'm really worried about the long-term effects of radiation exposure, and we need to be proactive. Even if we're not directly exposed to the radiation, there could still be fallout from the explosion that could contaminate our food and water supplies, and\n[00:36 - 00:43] Speaker B: You're right, that's a good point. We should probably start thinking about what supplies we need to stock up on. Do you have any idea where we should start?\n[00:44 - 00:57] Speaker A: Yeah, let's make a list of essential items. We need to ensure we have enough food, water, and medical supplies in case we have to shelter in place for a while. And we should also have a plan ready in case we need to evacuate.\n[00:58 - 01:00] Speaker B: Agreed. I'll start writing down some ideas.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. The speakers consistently stay on topic, which is the immediate aftermath of a nuclear explosion and the need for preparedness.\n*   Speaker B's initial question (\"But do you think we should be doing something right now?\") directly follows Speaker A's expression of fear and sets the direction for practical discussion.\n*   Speaker A's elaboration on long-term effects and the need to be proactive (00:18 - 00:36) directly addresses Speaker B's question and provides a solid rationale for preparation.\n*   Speaker B's agreement and follow-up question (\"Do you have any idea where we should start?\") naturally build on Speaker A's points.\n*   Speaker A's detailed suggestions for supplies and plans (00:44 - 00:57) are a direct, relevant answer to Speaker B's inquiry.\n*   Speaker B's final \"Agreed\" confirms understanding and commitment to the discussed plan.\nThe conversation flows logically from initial shock to a concrete discussion about emergency preparedness, demonstrating excellent topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nBased on the provided transcript, there are no explicit indications of extended overlaps or long pauses between speaker turns. The turn-taking appears to be natural and responsive, with each speaker picking up on the previous turn's content without undue delay or interruption. The timestamps indicate the duration of each speaker's turn, but not the pauses or overlaps *between* turns. Without specific notations like `[overlap]` or `[pause]` in the transcript, it is assumed that the interactional fluency is good, meaning no prolonged silences or speaking over each other are present. The dialogue reads as a smooth, back-and-forth exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--699",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: How are you doing?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm doing great! What are you making for dinner?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: I've been cooking for most of the day! I'm planning to have enchiladas tonight.\n[00:10 - 00:11] Speaker B: Oh! What's your favorite recipe?\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker A: I've never really made them myself, so I'm just winging it. I'm not quite sure what to use for\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: Wait, are you sure you have all the ingredients you need? I remember last time you ran out of cheese.\n[00:23 - 00:33] Speaker A: Oh, thanks for reminding me! I actually do have everything this time. Anyway, I was saying I'm not quite sure what to put in them yet. Do you have any suggestions?\n[00:33 - 00:36] Speaker B: Well, good luck! Let me know how they turn out!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speakers generally respond directly and appropriately to preceding turns.\n- Speaker B's initial response to \"How are you doing?\" transitions smoothly to asking about dinner, a natural conversational shift.\n- Speaker A's explanation of \"winging it\" is directly followed by Speaker B's interjection about ingredients. While an interruption, B's question is logically related to A's cooking process, demonstrating active listening and helpfulness.\n- Speaker A then masterfully handles the interjection by acknowledging B's reminder, confirming the situation, and then smoothly returning to their original point (\"Anyway, I was saying...\") before asking for suggestions. This shows excellent coherence management.\n- Speaker B's final remark, \"Well, good luck! Let me know how they turn out!\", although not directly providing suggestions as A asked, serves as a natural and polite way to conclude the interaction or topic segment. It's a common conversational exit strategy and doesn't break logical flow or coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates good fluency. There is one instance of overlap between Speaker A at [00:12 - 00:18] and Speaker B at [00:17 - 00:22]. This overlap lasts for approximately 1 second (from 0:17 to 0:18). According to the guidelines, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" A 1-second overlap is considered brief and natural, often indicating active listening or eagerness to contribute in real-time conversation. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses between speaker turns detected, indicating a natural and smooth conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--12515",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:09] Speaker A: Father, thank you for baptizing me. I've been struggling with my faith for a while, but after being baptized, I finally feel at peace with\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, Annabella. I'm just curious—what was it that finally brought you to the decision to be baptized?\n[00:15 - 00:22] Speaker A: I guess I just realized that I needed to do something to cement my faith. Being baptized seemed like the most logical way to do that.\n[00:23 - 00:25] Speaker B: And how do you feel now that you've been baptized?\n[00:26 - 00:35] Speaker A: Honestly? I feel great. Like a huge weight has been lifted off of my shoulders. I'm finally at peace with myself and with the direction\n[00:34 - 00:41] Speaker B: With God, right? That's truly a blessing, Annabella. Baptism is such a powerful step in one's spiritual journey.\n[00:41 - 00:47] Speaker A: Yes, with God. And I'm really grateful for the support I've received throughout this process.\n[00:48 - 00:59] Speaker B: That's wonderful, Annabella. Baptism is a very special moment in someone's life—it's a time when we celebrate new beginnings and recommit ourselves to our faith. I'm glad it was such a positive experience for you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial interruption (00:08) is immediately followed by a relevant question (\"what was it that finally brought you to the decision to be baptized?\") that directly relates to Speaker A's unfinished thought about feeling at peace after baptism. Speaker A's response (00:15) directly answers this question. Speaker B's subsequent questions (00:23) about feelings post-baptism are a logical progression, and Speaker A's answers (00:26) are highly responsive. The conversational completion by Speaker B (\"With God, right?\") at 00:34 is a natural and relevant inference based on Speaker A's incomplete statement, and Speaker A confirms it. All turns contribute to a coherent conversation about the experience and significance of baptism, showing clear topic coherence throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits high interactional fluency. There are two brief overlaps detected:\n1.  **[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker B overlapping [00:00 - 00:09] Speaker A:** This overlap is 1 second long (00:08-00:09). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt, Annabella\"), which makes it acceptable and demonstrates active listening and conversational awareness.\n2.  **[00:34 - 00:41] Speaker B overlapping [00:26 - 00:35] Speaker A:** This overlap is 1 second long (00:34-00:35). Speaker B completes Speaker A's sentence (\"with the direction...\") with \"With God, right?\", which is a very natural and common form of conversational engagement, indicating understanding and active participation rather than a disruptive overlap.\nNeither of these overlaps are extended or prolonged; they are brief and contribute to the natural flow of conversation.\nRegarding pauses, all transitions between speakers involve very short pauses (approximately 1 second or less, e.g., 00:14-00:15, 00:22-00:23, 00:25-00:26, 00:47-00:48). These are typical of natural conversation and do not constitute long pauses that would disrupt fluency. The turn-taking is smooth and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--117",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What can I do for you?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: I want to get my car washed.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: Would you like the regular car wash package?\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker B: I don't know what you mean.\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A: Well, we will wash the exterior from top to bottom. We use a special shampoo, which gives the body that extra shine and\n[00:15 - 00:16] Speaker B: Do you wash windows as part of that?\n[00:17 - 00:25] Speaker A: Of course. We wash the windows inside and out. Oh, and I should mention that the shampoo also adds an extra shine to the body.\n[00:25 - 00:26] Speaker B: What about the interior?\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker A: We use a vacuum cleaner that removes all the dirt, and we throw away all of the trash that we can find in\n[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker B: And do you clean the seats as well?\n[00:34 - 00:41] Speaker A: Yes, we make sure the seats are thoroughly cleaned. So, does the regular car wash package sound good to you?\n[00:41 - 00:44] Speaker B: Sounds good, the regular car wash package will be OK.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn is logically consistent with the preceding one, building naturally on the conversation about the \"regular car wash package.\" Speaker B's questions directly follow Speaker A's descriptions, and Speaker A's answers directly address Speaker B's inquiries. The topic coherence is maintained throughout, focusing solely on the details of the car wash service and confirming the choice. There are no irrelevant or off-topic remarks.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the gaps are consistently 1 second or less, which is natural for a smooth conversation. Brief overlaps occur at [00:15 - 00:16] and [00:25 - 00:26], where Speaker B starts speaking immediately as Speaker A finishes or is about to finish. Another brief overlap occurs at [00:32 - 00:34] where Speaker B slightly interrupts Speaker A to ask a follow-up question about the interior cleaning. These are all short, natural instances of turn-taking and not \"extended overlaps\" that would hinder understanding or flow. The conversation feels dynamic and natural, without any awkward silences or disruptive interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--236",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Can I get you something to drink?\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: Sure, but I don't drink much. So I don't know what to choose from\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: Oh, in that case, how about an aperitif? It's a light way to start.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: It sounds good. I'd like to start with a Compari.\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker A: Stirred or shaken?\n[00:14 - 00:15] Speaker B: Stirred will be fine.\n[00:16 - 00:17] Speaker A: Here you are.\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker B: Thanks. Does the bar have a signature drink?\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker A: Sure. All of our mixed drinks are excellent. You can also try a delicious non-alcoholic option if\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker B: Actually, I was curious about that Compari—was it stirred or shaken? I didn't catch that earlier.\n[00:31 - 00:39] Speaker A: It was stirred, as you requested. But back to the drinks, you might like to try a Singer. It has lime juice and grenadine over ice.\n[00:40 - 00:42] Speaker B: It sounds interesting. I'll take one.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue are consistently relevant and maintain logical consistency. Speaker A effectively responds to Speaker B's preferences and questions, offering appropriate suggestions (aperitif, specific drink details like \"stirred or shaken\", then a \"Singer\"). Speaker B's questions and affirmations are also directly related to Speaker A's statements. Even when Speaker B interrupts to ask for clarification on a past detail (\"was it stirred or shaken?\"), Speaker A handles it gracefully by answering and then smoothly transitioning back to offering new suggestions (\"But back to the drinks, you might like to try a Singer\"). There are no instances of off-topic remarks or illogical follow-ups. The conversation flows coherently from one topic to the next.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is largely good, with no long pauses detected between turns (all observed pauses are 1 second or less, which is natural). There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  At `[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A:` starting while `[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B:` is still speaking (1 second overlap). This appears to be Speaker A jumping in as Speaker B is concluding their thought, which can occur naturally in conversation and does not significantly impede understanding.\n2.  At `[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker B:` starting while `[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker A:` is still speaking (1 second overlap). This is an explicit interruption by Speaker B, cutting off Speaker A's unfinished sentence to ask a clarifying question about a previous point. While a direct interruption, its duration is brief (1 second) and it does not lead to a breakdown in communication or prolonged awkwardness. Speaker A adeptly manages this by addressing the interruption and then redirecting the conversation.\n\nGiven that \"small pauses and brief overlaps... are acceptable,\" and the overlaps are short and do not cause significant issues or confusion, the interaction remains largely fluid. The interruption, while not ideal for perfect turn-taking, is managed well by Speaker A, indicating overall strong fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--650",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: That makes sense. What about you? What do you think about\n[00:02 - 00:11] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but do you think Marx's focus on fairness might actually motivate people to work harder, knowing that everyone starts from the same place?\n[00:11 - 00:26] Speaker A: That's an interesting point. I hadn't thought of it that way. But I still think that people should focus on what they want and not worry so much about fairness. I think that people should be equal, but people should also take pride in their own successes.\n[00:26 - 00:33] Speaker B: Yeah, but I think that there can be a good balance between focusing on yourself and focusing on making sure that everyone is fair.\n[00:33 - 00:34] Speaker A: How so?\n[00:35 - 00:44] Speaker B: Well, we have to focus on ourselves so that we have the skills to achieve what we want to achieve. But I don't think people should have the unfair advantage of starting off better than everyone else.\n[00:44 - 00:52] Speaker A: I guess. I think that fairness is a really important thing. If we all work as hard as we can, the world will be a better place.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. The speakers engage in a clear debate about fairness, individual effort, and societal good.\n\n*   **Speaker A initiates** by asking Speaker B for their thoughts, which is a direct and relevant prompt for the next turn.\n*   **Speaker B's initial jump-in** is immediately relevant, introducing a specific angle on fairness (Marx's focus on it motivating work) that fits within a likely preceding discussion context. The \"Sorry to jump in\" explicitly indicates awareness of turn-taking and maintains politeness, but the content is on point.\n*   **Speaker A's response** acknowledges B's point (\"That's an interesting point\") before offering a counter-perspective, focusing on individual desires versus fairness, which directly contrasts with B's argument. This is a logical progression of the debate.\n*   **Speaker B's subsequent turn** (`Yeah, but I think that there can be a good balance...`) directly addresses A's point and attempts to find a middle ground, showing a clear engagement with the preceding turn.\n*   **Speaker A's \"How so?\"** is a precise and relevant request for elaboration, indicating active listening and a desire for clarification.\n*   **Speaker B then elaborates**, explaining their proposed balance between self-focus and preventing unfair advantages, directly answering A's question.\n*   **Speaker A's final turn** (`I guess. I think that fairness is a really important thing. If we all work as hard as we can, the world will be a better place.`) shows an acknowledgement (\"I guess\") of B's explanation and then reiterates their core belief about fairness, which is consistent with their previous stance and maintains topic coherence.\n\nThe conversation flows naturally, with each turn building upon the previous one, demonstrating high logical consistency and topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one minor overlap at `[00:02 - 00:11]` where Speaker B starts talking while Speaker A is finishing. However, this is a very brief overlap (1 second) and Speaker B explicitly apologizes (\"Sorry to jump in\"), which indicates awareness and politeness, making it a natural, non-disruptive instance rather than an \"extended overlap.\" It contributes to a natural, eager conversational flow rather than hindering it.\n*   **Pauses:** There is one short pause between `[00:34]` (Speaker A finishes) and `[00:35]` (Speaker B starts). This is a 1-second pause, which is perfectly natural for turn-taking and thinking time. It does not constitute a \"long pause\" that would disrupt the flow.\n\nOverall, the turn-taking is smooth, and the brief overlap and pause are within acceptable limits for natural conversation, not indicating any fluency issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--488",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: What is your favorite type of dog to groom?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: Oh, it's definitely a mutt! I like the sense of adventure I get from grooming a mixed breed.\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker A: Mutts definitely are the best!\n[00:10 - 00:11] Speaker B: How often do you groom your dog?\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker A: I groom Bo about once a month.\n[00:14 - 00:15] Speaker B: What does he look like?\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: He's a black lab mix. He's pretty small, but I like his curly fur, which\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker B: Curly fur? That sounds adorable! Does he shed a lot?\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: Not too much, but sometimes his fur can get tangled. I haven't mentioned that he has a really playful personality, which\n[00:31 - 00:33] Speaker B: Playful dogs are the best! Do you take him to the park often?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses the previous statement or question, or naturally builds upon the ongoing topic.\n- Speaker B's initial response about \"mutts\" directly answers Speaker A's question and provides a reason.\n- Speaker A's agreement \"Mutts definitely are the best!\" validates Speaker B's previous statement.\n- Speaker B's shift to \"How often do you groom your dog?\" is a natural conversational pivot within the dog-related theme.\n- The subsequent exchange about \"Bo\" (Speaker A's dog) flows logically, with Speaker B asking follow-up questions about appearance and shedding, and Speaker A providing detailed descriptions.\n- The interjection \"Curly fur? That sounds adorable! Does he shed a lot?\" from Speaker B, while overlapping slightly, is a relevant and enthusiastic response to Speaker A's description.\n- Speaker A's answer regarding shedding and the introduction of \"playful personality\" leads naturally to Speaker B's final question about park visits.\nThe conversation maintains topic coherence throughout, moving from general preferences to specific details about Speaker A's dog, demonstrating excellent relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is very good. There are no long pauses between turns; most transitions are immediate or involve only a 1-second pause, which is natural.\n- The turn-taking is smooth, indicating good conversational flow.\n- There is one instance of overlap between Speaker A (00:15 - 00:21) and Speaker B (00:20 - 00:23). Speaker B interjects with \"Curly fur? That sounds adorable! Does he shed a lot?\" while Speaker A is still finishing a sentence (\"...curly fur, which\"). This overlap is brief (approximately 1 second) and appears to be an enthusiastic interjection rather than a disruptive interruption. It shows engagement and is common in natural, fluid conversation, not harmful.\nOverall, the pacing is natural, and the brief overlap enhances rather than detracts from the conversational feel.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--125577",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hey, Chesney. I just wanted to give you a full report on the situation we're dealing with\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Yeah, I've been meaning to ask you about that. What's going on?\n[00:07 - 00:16] Speaker A: Well, it's a bit of a long story. But the short version is that we have a lot of people who are very upset about the current state of affairs.\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B: I see. And what exactly are they upset about?\n[00:19 - 00:31] Speaker A: A lot of things, really. They're upset about the war, they're upset about the economy, they're upset about corruption in government. Basically, they're just fed up with the way things are being handled,\n[00:30 - 00:36] Speaker B: Corruption in government? That's a big one. Do you think we have any leverage to actually address that issue in a meaningful way?\n[00:37 - 00:50] Speaker A: It's definitely a sensitive issue. We need to approach it carefully, but I was also thinking we could try talking to them about their specific grievances. Maybe there's something we can do to help them out specifically.\n[00:50 - 00:56] Speaker B: That sounds like a good idea. Let me know if you need any help with that and I'll see what I can do from my end as well.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement.\n- Speaker A initiates the topic, and Speaker B immediately responds with a relevant question (\"What's going on?\").\n- Speaker A provides a general overview, and Speaker B follows up with a specific clarifying question (\"And what exactly are they upset about?\").\n- Speaker A lists the grievances, and Speaker B picks up on a key point (\"Corruption in government?\") to ask about potential solutions.\n- Speaker A offers a strategy, and Speaker B affirms it and offers support.\nThe conversation maintains a clear topic focus, moving from a general problem statement to specific details and then to potential actions, demonstrating excellent topic coherence. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or irrelevant responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are a couple of very brief overlaps, specifically:\n- [00:04 - 00:07]: Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is concluding their sentence. This overlap is only 1 second ([00:04 - 00:05] in Speaker A's sentence, and Speaker B starts at 00:04), which is natural and indicative of active listening and quick uptake in human conversation, not a disruptive \"prolonged overlap.\"\n- [00:30 - 00:36]: Similar to the above, Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is concluding their thought. This overlap is also 1 second ([00:30 - 00:31] in Speaker A's sentence, and Speaker B starts at 00:30). Again, this is a brief, natural interjection.\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns. The slight pause between [00:36] (Speaker B's turn end) and [00:37] (Speaker A's turn start) is only 1 second, which is perfectly natural and does not disrupt the flow. The dialogue flows smoothly, reflecting a natural and unhindered conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--452",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I've always wanted to go to France!\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I would love to go too. What a beautiful country.\n[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker A: I've always been interested in French history. I did some French in college, but I think I could take it a lot further if I had the chance to\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: Oh, do you think knowing French is essential for enjoying a trip there?\n[00:16 - 00:25] Speaker A: It would certainly help in understanding the culture better. But I haven't mentioned that learning French could also open up job opportunities in international\n[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker B: That's true! And it could also make traveling easier and more immersive.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I've always wanted to go to France!** - Initiates a clear topic.\n2.  **[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I would love to go too. What a beautiful country.** - Directly responds by agreeing and adding a positive sentiment, maintaining the topic.\n3.  **[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker A: I've always been interested in French history. I did some French in college, but I think I could take it a lot further if I had the chance to** - Expands on the topic of France by linking it to personal interest in history and language, maintaining coherence.\n4.  **[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: Oh, do you think knowing French is essential for enjoying a trip there?** - Picks up on Speaker A's mention of \"doing French\" and asks a relevant follow-up question that furthers the discussion about visiting France and language.\n5.  **[00:16 - 00:25] Speaker A: It would certainly help in understanding the culture better. But I haven't mentioned that learning French could also open up job opportunities in international** - Directly answers Speaker B's question and introduces additional benefits of learning French, keeping the conversation logically flowing from the previous point.\n6.  **[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker B: That's true! And it could also make traveling easier and more immersive.** - Agrees with Speaker A's points and adds another valid benefit of learning French, reinforcing the topic and showing active listening.\n\nOverall, the conversation is highly coherent, each turn builds logically on the previous one, and the topic of France and its associated aspects (travel, history, language, opportunities) is consistently maintained and explored. There are no logical inconsistencies or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n1.  **No long pauses:** There are no instances of extended silence between speaker turns. The turns follow each other naturally and promptly.\n2.  **Brief overlaps only:** There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    *   [00:12 - 00:13]: A 1-second overlap where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence.\n    *   [00:24 - 00:25]: A 1-second overlap where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence.\n\nAccording to the instructions, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" Both overlaps detected are 1 second, which qualifies as \"brief\" and contributes to a natural, dynamic conversation rather than disrupting it. There are no extended overlaps where speakers talk over each other for a significant duration, nor are there any long, unnatural pauses. The flow feels natural and responsive.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--98889",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Mom. Do you need any help with dinner?\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: No, I think I've got it under control. Thanks for offering, though.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker A: You're welcome. So, what's for dinner tonight?\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but before I forget, do you think we could bake some cookies for the bake sale tomorrow?\n[00:15 - 00:25] Speaker A: That's a great idea! I was just thinking about that. We have all the ingredients we need. Let's get started right away so they can be fresh for the sale tomorrow.\n[00:25 - 00:27] Speaker B: Okay, sounds good to me.\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker A: Hey, Mom. Thanks for letting me help you bake cookies for the bake sale. It was fun.\n[00:33 - 00:39] Speaker B: You're welcome, honey. I'm glad you had fun. We made a lot of cookies and I think we'll be able to raise a lot of money for the school\n[00:38 - 00:45] Speaker A: Speaking of raising money, do you think we should make a sign to go with the cookies? Something that highlights the cause?\n[00:45 - 00:51] Speaker B: That's a fantastic idea! A sign would definitely draw more attention. Let's work on that next.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are consistently relevant and logically consistent.\n- Speaker B's initial interruption at [00:09 - 00:14] is explicitly acknowledged (\"Sorry to jump in\"), indicating awareness and making the topic shift (from dinner to cookies) a deliberate and plausible spontaneous thought within a natural conversation. Speaker A's response at [00:15 - 00:25] enthusiastically embraces this new topic, maintaining coherence.\n- The shift in time implied between [00:25 - 00:27] and [00:27 - 00:32] (from planning to post-baking reflection) represents a narrative progression rather than a break in logical consistency. Within the scope of the dialogue presented, Speaker A's thanks at [00:27 - 00:32] logically follows the prior agreement to bake.\n- Speaker A's transition at [00:38 - 00:45] using \"Speaking of raising money\" is a very smooth and coherent way to introduce a new, related idea based on Speaker B's previous statement about raising money for the school.\nAll turns build upon or logically transition from the preceding ones, demonstrating strong topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are two brief overlaps:\n    - At [00:09 - 00:10], Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A for 1 second. Speaker B immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to jump in\"), which indicates a natural, polite interruption rather than a disruptive extended overlap.\n    - At [00:38 - 00:39], Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B for 1 second. Speaker A uses a common discourse marker (\"Speaking of...\") to introduce a new thought, which often naturally occurs as another speaker is finishing their sentence.\n- Both overlaps are very brief (1 second) and contextualized as natural conversational phenomena. They are not prolonged or disruptive.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Each speaker responds promptly to the previous turn, maintaining a natural flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--100",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, don't I know you from somewhere?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: No, sorry. I don't think so.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: Didn't you use to work at Common Fitness Gym?\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker B: No, I'm afraid I did not.\n[00:10 - 00:22] Speaker A: Oh, but I know you from somewhere else. Did you use to work at the movie theater downtown? You did. Yes. It's you. I go there all the time and you always sell me popcorn and maybe you\n[00:21 - 00:26] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I think you're confusing me with someone else. I've never worked at a movie theater.\n[00:27 - 00:40] Speaker A: No, I know you. I have met you before! Hold on. Let me think. This is driving me crazy. I know that we've talked before. Oh, I remember now. You work at the Whole Bean Cafe on the corner. Is that where I\n[00:39 - 00:43] Speaker B: Actually, I don't work there either. Sorry, ma'am, but I really have to get going.\n[00:44 - 00:47] Speaker A: Oh, before you go, what were you saying about the popcorn earlier?\n[00:48 - 00:52] Speaker B: I was just going to say I've never sold popcorn at a theater. Maybe I just look familiar.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's persistence in trying to identify Speaker B, despite repeated denials, drives the conversation's core topic. Speaker B's consistent denials and polite attempts to disengage are logically coherent responses to Speaker A's mistaken identity. Each turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one. For example, Speaker B's \"No, sorry. I don't think so\" is a direct answer to Speaker A's initial question. Speaker A's follow-up questions about specific places (gym, movie theater, cafe) maintain topic coherence, even though they are incorrect assumptions. Speaker B's interjections to correct Speaker A (\"Sorry to interrupt, but...\", \"Actually, I don't work there either\") are highly relevant and logical given Speaker A's escalating (and incorrect) certainty. Speaker B's statement \"Sorry, ma'am, but I really have to get going\" is a logical progression of their desire to end the persistent interaction. Speaker A's final question about popcorn, while slightly changing the immediate focus from \"where do I know you from\" to \"what were you saying about popcorn,\" is still directly tied to an earlier point in the conversation, making it relevant. Speaker B's final clarification is also highly relevant. Overall, the dialogue maintains a clear logical flow and topic coherence centered around a mistaken identity scenario.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the conversation flows naturally and quickly, indicative of a real-time interaction. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  At [00:21 - 00:26], Speaker B overlaps Speaker A by one second (Speaker A ends at 0:22, Speaker B starts at 0:21). This is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating an urgent desire to correct the persistent Speaker A. This is a natural and brief overlap, not prolonged.\n2.  At [00:39 - 00:43], Speaker B again overlaps Speaker A by one second (Speaker A ends at 0:40, Speaker B starts at 0:39). Similar to the first instance, this brief overlap serves to interject a correction and express a desire to end the conversation, which feels very natural given Speaker B's increasing exasperation.\nNeither of these overlaps are \"extended\" or \"prolonged\"; they are brief and serve a clear conversational function, contributing to the naturalistic feel of the interaction rather than hindering it. They are well within the acceptable range for brief overlaps mentioned in the criteria.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 4
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--8",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Good morning. What can I do for you?\n[00:02 - 00:07] Speaker B: I'm in Room 309. I'm checking out today. Can I have my bill now?\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: Certainly. Please wait a moment. Here you are.\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker B: Thanks. Wait... What's this? The 30 dollar for the minibar\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker A: Excuse me, I just wanted to clarify that the $30 charge is for your laundry service on Nov. 20th.\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: But I didn't take any laundry service during my stay here. I think you have added someone else's charge to my bill.\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker A: Ummmm...Sorry, would you mind waiting a moment? We'll check it with the department concerned.\n[00:33 - 00:39] Speaker B: No. As long as we get this straightened out. Oh, and I just realized—what about the minibar? Did you already include that?\n[00:40 - 00:50] Speaker A: I'm very sorry. There has been a mistake with the laundry charge, we'll correct the bill. As for the minibar, it was already included. Please take a look at the updated bill.\n[00:51 - 00:52] Speaker B: Okay, here you are.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout.\n1.  **Initial Exchange (00:00 - 00:11):** Speaker A's greeting and offer of help are relevant, and Speaker B's request for the bill, along with their room number and intention to check out, is pertinent. Speaker A's confirmation and presentation of the bill are also highly relevant actions.\n2.  **Addressing the Discrepancy (00:11 - 00:39):** When Speaker B identifies a suspicious charge, their question is relevant. Speaker A's initial attempt to clarify the charge (even if incorrect) is relevant to addressing the customer's immediate concern. When Speaker B refutes the laundry charge, their explanation is logical and coherent. Speaker A's subsequent \"Ummmm...Sorry, would you mind waiting a moment? We'll check it...\" shows a relevant and logical step to resolve the discovered discrepancy. Speaker B's agreement and remembering the original minibar question demonstrate good topic management and continued relevance to their overall bill concerns.\n3.  **Resolution (00:40 - 00:52):** Speaker A's apology, acknowledgment of the mistake, correction of the bill, and clear answer regarding the minibar charge are all highly relevant and lead directly to a resolution. Speaker B's final confirmation concludes the interaction appropriately.\nThe conversation maintains topic coherence, and responses build logically on previous turns, effectively moving towards resolution of the customer's issue. The initial factual error by Speaker A is a task-related mistake, but their *response* to B's query is relevant, and their subsequent actions to correct it maintain high relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction generally flows very well with natural pacing and appropriate turn-taking, indicating good interactional fluency.\n1.  **No Long Pauses:** There are no extended silences between turns that disrupt the conversation flow or indicate hesitation beyond what is natural (e.g., Speaker A's \"Ummmm...\" is a natural vocalization of thought, not a prolonged pause).\n2.  **Overlap Evaluation (00:13 - 00:15):** There is one noticeable overlap where Speaker A starts speaking at [00:13] (\"Excuse me, I just wanted to clarify...\") while Speaker B's sentence \"The 30 dollar for the minibar\" finishes at [00:15]. This is a 2-second overlap. While the instruction states \"prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful,\" this particular overlap, introduced with \"Excuse me,\" functions as a prompt interjection to clarify what Speaker A *perceives* as a misidentification by B. It's a slightly assertive, but common, conversational move to jump in and correct. It doesn't lead to a breakdown in understanding or significant disruption of the conversational flow. It is a brief overlap within the context of a quick clarification rather than a sustained overlapping turn that inhibits comprehension. Given that it's the only instance and its functional purpose, it does not significantly detract from the overall fluency or naturalness of the dialogue.\nOverall, the dialogue demonstrates very good interactional fluency with only one minor, functional overlap that does not impede communication.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--565",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I really like listening to music! What's your favorite band?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: I like listening to a lot of different music, but I really like Bob Dylan.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: I love Bob Dylan. I saw him in concert a few years ago.\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker B: That's great! I saw him play once, too, but it was an awful experience because\n[00:15 - 00:18] Speaker A: Really? What happened that made it so awful?\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B: He missed a lot of notes and his voice was just not the same. It was quite disappointing.\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker A: Yeah, I was so disappointed. He missed a lot of notes.\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker B: That's too bad. I think his music is amazing.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence throughout most of the conversation. Speaker A initiates with a question about favorite bands, and Speaker B provides a direct answer (Bob Dylan). The conversation naturally progresses to shared experiences with Bob Dylan concerts. Speaker B introduces a negative experience, and Speaker A's follow-up question (\"Really? What happened that made it so awful?\") is highly relevant, showing active listening and a desire for more information. Speaker B's explanation is a direct response to this.\n\nThe only point of slight concern for logical consistency is Speaker A's turn at [00:23 - 00:28]: \"Yeah, I was so disappointed. He missed a lot of notes.\" Earlier, Speaker A had said, \"I love Bob Dylan. I saw him in concert a few years ago\" [00:08 - 00:12], implying a positive or at least non-negative experience. Suddenly claiming to have been \"so disappointed\" and giving the exact same reasons Speaker B just provided (missed notes) can feel a little inconsistent with A's initial implied positive sentiment about their own concert experience, or at least a lack of earlier disclosure of disappointment. It reads as though A is either retroactively applying disappointment to their own experience or mirroring B's account very closely. While this doesn't derail the conversation or make it irrelevant, it's a minor deviation from perfect logical consistency in Speaker A's personal narrative within the dialogue. However, it's not a \"significant issue\" that breaks the flow or understanding.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns (pauses are typically 0-1 second, which is natural).\n\nThe only instance of an overlap occurs between Speaker B's turn at [00:12 - 00:17] and Speaker A's turn at [00:15 - 00:18]. Speaker B is in the middle of explaining (\"...awful experience because\"), and Speaker A interjects with \"Really? What happened that made it so awful?\". This overlap lasts for approximately 2 seconds (from 00:15 to 00:17). According to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This 2-second overlap is brief and is a common, natural occurrence in conversation where one speaker is actively engaged and eager for clarification or more information. It does not appear to disrupt the conversation flow or cause confusion. It signifies active participation rather than a breakdown in fluency. Therefore, it falls within the \"acceptable\" range for brief overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--438",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Brian, do you know how to speak English?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Yes.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: Where did you learn?\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker B: I learned in college.\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker A: You speak really well.\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker B: Thank you.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker A: How long have you been in the U.S.?\n[00:12 - 00:13] Speaker B: 3 weeks.\n[00:13 - 00:14] Speaker A: Is your wife with you?\n[00:15 - 00:17] Speaker B: Yes, she just got her visa\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker A: Oh, did she have any trouble adjusting to the new environment?\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B: Not really, she's doing fine. But I was saying she just got here yesterday.\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker A: Got it. Have you been to California before?\n[00:27 - 00:28] Speaker B: No. I've never been there.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue consistently demonstrate high logical consistency and topic coherence. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or follows up on the previous statement, ensuring a clear and understandable progression of the conversation.\n- Speaker B's \"Yes\" (0:02-0:03) is a direct answer to \"do you know how to speak English?\".\n- \"I learned in college\" (0:05-0:06) directly answers \"Where did you learn?\".\n- \"Thank you\" (0:08-0:09) is an appropriate response to a compliment.\n- \"3 weeks\" (0:12-0:13) answers \"How long have you been in the U.S.?\".\n- \"Yes, she just got her visa\" (0:15-0:17) directly answers \"Is your wife with you?\".\n- Speaker A's follow-up question \"Oh, did she have any trouble adjusting to the new environment?\" (0:15-0:19) is a logical continuation after learning the wife recently arrived.\n- Speaker B's response \"Not really, she's doing fine. But I was saying she just got here yesterday.\" (0:19-0:23) first directly answers A's question about adjusting, and then clarifies the very recent arrival, adding relevant context.\n- Speaker A's \"Got it. Have you been to California before?\" (0:24-0:27) smoothly acknowledges the previous information and then shifts the topic naturally, as often happens in casual conversation.\n- Speaker B's \"No. I've never been there.\" (0:27-0:28) is a direct and relevant answer to the new question.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses or abrupt, incoherent topic changes. The conversation flows logically and coherently throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally very good, with only minor instances that do not significantly disrupt the conversation.\n- **Pauses:** There are several small pauses (e.g., 1 second between 0:06 and 0:07, 0:11 and 0:12, 0:14 and 0:15, 0:23 and 0:24). These are brief and natural conversational hesitations, falling within the acceptable range for a fluent dialogue. They do not indicate a breakdown in communication or an unnatural delay.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one instance of overlap between 0:15 and 0:17. Speaker B states \"Yes, she just got her visa\" (0:15-0:17), while Speaker A begins \"Oh, did she have any trouble adjusting to the new environment?\" (0:15-0:19). Speaker A starts speaking approximately 2 seconds before Speaker B finishes. This is a brief overlap where Speaker A jumps in slightly early with a follow-up question that is highly relevant to Speaker B's ongoing statement. This type of overlap is common in natural conversation and indicates engagement rather than a struggle for the floor or a disruptive interruption. It is not an \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" overlap that harms the interactional flow. Both speakers successfully convey their messages without needing to repeat themselves or significantly rephrase due to the overlap.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking are natural and effective.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--475",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What do you do for fun?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Nothing, really!\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: That's great - nothing is just as good as something, haha. I do like to play tennis.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: That's interesting. I've always wanted to learn how to play tennis.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker A: It's great exercise. What do you think of powerlifting?\n[00:17 - 00:20] Speaker B: I had a friend tell me that it was a good way to stay in shape and\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but I'm really curious—did your friend mention any specific benefits of powerlifting over other forms of exercise?\n[00:29 - 00:32] Speaker B: They mentioned it helps build strength more effectively. I would like to try it.\n[00:33 - 00:36] Speaker A: I agree! What would you like to learn about it?\n[00:36 - 00:41] Speaker B: I would like to learn about the different forms of the sport, as well as the equipment used to ensure safety\n[00:40 - 00:49] Speaker A: Equipment is crucial, but I'm also curious about the forms you're interested in. Are you thinking of starting with squats or deadlifts?\n[00:49 - 00:55] Speaker B: Probably squats. But I do need to know more about the equipment too. How do you think you'll go about learning about it?\n[00:56 - 00:58] Speaker A: I'm thinking of getting an information book.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence throughout.\n*   **Initial greeting and sharing:** Speaker A asks a common question, and Speaker B responds. Speaker A then shares their own activity, which is a natural progression.\n*   **Topic shift handling:** Speaker A introduces powerlifting after discussing tennis and exercise. While this is a shift, it's within the broader theme of physical activity/hobbies and not completely out of context. The subsequent conversation remains focused on powerlifting.\n*   **Follow-up questions:** Speaker A's \"Sorry to cut in, but I'm really curious...\" is a good example of acknowledging an interruption while immediately steering the conversation to a relevant follow-up question based on Speaker B's incomplete thought. This shows strong engagement and logical progression.\n*   **Detailing interests:** Speaker B's response about wanting to learn about \"forms\" and \"equipment\" is directly responsive to Speaker A's prompt. Speaker A then picks up on both points, demonstrating active listening and maintaining coherence by asking for specific examples of \"forms.\"\n*   **Natural conversational turns:** Speaker B's \"How do you think you'll go about learning about it?\" shifts the question back to Speaker A naturally, and Speaker A provides a direct and relevant answer.\nThere are no instances where responses are nonsensical or completely off-topic. The conversation flows logically, building upon previous turns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent interactional fluency with only brief, natural overlaps and no prolonged pauses.\n*   **No long pauses:** There are no instances of extended silence between turns that would disrupt the flow. The conversation maintains a good pace.\n*   **Brief, natural overlaps:**\n    *   At [00:20], Speaker A explicitly states, \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating a brief overlap with Speaker B's preceding sentence. This acknowledgement makes the overlap natural and polite, rather than disruptive. This is a common and acceptable feature of natural conversation, showing eagerness to engage.\n    *   At [00:40], Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is finishing their sentence (Speaker B's turn ends at [00:41]). This is a very brief, 1-second overlap. Speaker A immediately references \"Equipment is crucial,\" which was part of B's ongoing sentence, demonstrating that they were listening and not just interrupting arbitrarily. This type of brief overlap is typical in high-engagement, natural conversation and does not hinder understanding or flow.\n\nThe instructions state that small pauses and brief overlaps are acceptable. Both observed overlaps fit this description and do not detract from the overall fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 5
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--149",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Hi, Dan, I'm calling to check on that order of 100 computers were the tenth of September. However, it has been delayed for 2 days.\n[00:08 - 00:16] Speaker B: Yes, I know. I mean to call you and tell you that the factory is short of hands at the moment. They say they can get the order to you by the eigh teenth, but\n[00:15 - 00:26] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but the eighteenth is really pushing it for us. If you can give me Steve's phone number, I'll call him and tell him about this. Do you have his number handy?\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker B: Yes, it's 87506638.\n[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker A: Sorry, is that double 6 or double 3?\n[00:34 - 00:35] Speaker B: Double 6.\n[00:36 - 00:40] Speaker A: I suppose he can't really complain. Those computers are a bargain.\n[00:40 - 00:48] Speaker B: Exactly. A few days, it shouldn't make that much difference. By the way, I was going to say they can get the order to you by the eighteenth. Thanks for understanding, Darlene.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement, maintaining logical consistency and topic coherence throughout the conversation.\n\n*   **Speaker A (00:00-00:08)** introduces the topic of the delayed order, which is directly addressed by **Speaker B (00:08-00:16)** with an explanation and new proposed date.\n*   **Speaker A (00:15-00:26)** responds to the proposed date, expressing concern and requesting contact information, which **Speaker B (00:26-00:31)** then provides.\n*   The clarification exchange about the phone number between **Speaker A (00:31-00:34)** and **Speaker B (00:34-00:35)** is highly relevant for accuracy.\n*   **Speaker A (00:36-00:40)** makes a reflective comment about the situation, acknowledging the 'bargain' aspect, which is logically tied to the potential acceptance of the delay.\n*   **Speaker B (00:40-00:48)** picks up on this reflection (\"Exactly\"), reiterates the key information (new delivery date), and thanks Speaker A, concluding the immediate issue coherently.\n\nThere are no irrelevant tangents or misunderstandings. The conversation stays focused on the order delay and its resolution.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent, demonstrating natural conversational flow with appropriate management of turns and timing.\n\n*   **Overlap (00:15-00:26) Speaker A:** Speaker A says \"Sorry to cut in\" indicating a polite, brief overlap that is explicitly acknowledged. This is a natural conversational phenomenon where one speaker anticipates the other's turn or has an urgent point to make. It is not prolonged or disruptive, and Speaker B seamlessly transitions after it.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no extended long pauses detected between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and responsive, indicating engagement and a smooth conversational rhythm.\n*   **Turn-taking:** Turn-taking is well-managed. Speakers respond promptly to each other's queries and statements, contributing to a fluid interaction. The brief overlap is managed gracefully by Speaker A's apology.\n\nThe conversation feels very natural, like a real-world phone call with good rapport between the speakers.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--79",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What do you know about our company?\n[00:01 - 00:18] Speaker B: Well, as I know this company is one of the largest and best in this field of business. It mainly produces toys for children. It employs more than 10,000 people throughout the world. The president now is Mr. Jackson. The Shanghai branch was founded five years ago with a staff of more than 2,000.\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker A: Very good. If you enter this company, what department would you like to work in?\n[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker B: May I work in the sales department?\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: OK. Oh, how much do you make at your current job, if you don't mind my asking?\n[00:32 - 00:40] Speaker B: I'm paid 2,000 yuan per month plus some allowances and bonus as that come to about 3,000 yuan a month. How much will you [interrupt]\n[00:39 - 00:47] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but before we discuss your potential salary here, could you clarify what allowances you receive currently?\n[00:47 - 00:52] Speaker B: Sure, I receive transportation and meal allowances. Now, how much will you pay me?\n[00:52 - 01:02] Speaker A: Well, the starting salary for a clerk in our company is 2,500 yuan monthly, and after three months, he would get a raise if his work is satisfactory.\n[01:02 - 01:04] Speaker B: Do you have any fringe benefits?\n[01:04 - 01:12] Speaker A: Sure, we provide a semi-annual bonus, a small bonus at Spring Festival, and four weeks of paid vacation a year.\n[01:12 - 01:15] Speaker B: How about insurance and full health insurance?\n[01:15 - 01:20] Speaker A: We can buy that for you, and we also include dental and vision coverage.\n[01:20 - 01:21] Speaker B: That sounds good.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance throughout.\n- Speaker B's initial response about the company demonstrates accurate and detailed knowledge, directly answering Speaker A's question.\n- Speaker B's preference for the sales department is a direct and relevant answer to the question about desired work department.\n- The discussion seamlessly transitions from current salary to potential salary and then to benefits, with each speaker's turn logically following the previous one. Speaker A's redirection to clarify allowances before discussing their own salary is a logical and relevant step in a salary negotiation. Speaker B's subsequent questions about fringe benefits and insurance are also highly relevant to a job offer discussion.\n- There are no instances of topic shifts that lack coherence or irrelevant information being introduced. The conversation maintains a clear, logical flow, characteristic of a well-structured job interview/negotiation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth and natural conversational pace.\n- There is one instance of an overlap ([00:39 - 00:40] where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B). However, this is a *brief* overlap (1 second) and is explicitly managed by Speaker A (\"Sorry to interrupt, but...\"), which is a natural characteristic of spontaneous conversation and does not hinder communication. The evaluation criteria state that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This specific overlap is brief and handled gracefully, indicating good interactional skills rather than a fluency issue. There are no \"extended overlaps\" that would be harmful.\n- The turns are well-timed, and the conversation progresses without awkward silences or prolonged interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--71",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: It's much larger than I expected. When was the plant [interrupt]\n[00:01 - 00:07] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I just realized I didn't ask—how many employees do you have working here?\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: We have 500 employees, running on three shifts. But you were asking about when the plant was set up— it was\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker B: Oh right, when was it established?\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker A: In the early 70s. We'll soon be celebrating the 30th anniversary.\n[00:20 - 00:21] Speaker B: Congratulations!\n[00:22 - 00:22] Speaker A: Thank you.\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B: Does the plant work with everything from the raw material to the finished product?\n[00:27 - 00:35] Speaker A: Our associates specializing in these fields make some accessories. Well, here we're at the production shop. Shall we start with the assembly line?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial interruption is acknowledged (\"Sorry to interrupt\") and is followed by a relevant question about the plant's operations. Speaker A then answers the new question and *gracefully redirects* the conversation back to the original topic, which Speaker B immediately picks up on. This demonstrates excellent topic coherence and memory on Speaker A's part, and good attentiveness from Speaker B. Subsequent turns continue to be logical and coherent, with Speaker B asking relevant follow-up questions and Speaker A providing answers and initiating the next logical step of the plant tour. The conversation flows naturally and purposefully.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is high. There are two instances of brief overlaps. The first, where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A, is handled explicitly by Speaker B with an apology, which makes the interruption feel natural and polite rather than disruptive. The second overlap is very brief, with Speaker B confirming the original question as Speaker A is re-introducing it, which is common in natural conversation and indicates active listening. There are no extended overlaps. Pauses between turns are minimal (e.g., a 1-second pause before Speaker B asks a new question at 0:23 and before Speaker A answers at 0:27), falling well within the acceptable range for natural conversation and not indicating any hesitation or breakdown in communication. The turn-taking is smooth and efficient.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--450",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Have you read any of Shakespeare's plays?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Nope. I don't really enjoy reading much.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: Interesting. Have you seen any of the adaptations?\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Umm. I remember my English teacher reading some of them to the class. It was kind of boring at\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but when your teacher read to the class, did you find it more engaging than reading on your own?\n[00:19 - 00:28] Speaker B: It was kind of weird, but yeah, a bit more engaging. There's a really interesting film called Hamlet. It's a modern adaptation. I think it\n[00:27 - 00:32] Speaker A: Oh, I love modern adaptations! Do you think it captures the essence of the original play well?\n[00:33 - 00:36] Speaker B: I recommend it. Huh. Will have to check it out.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A consistently asks follow-up questions that build on Speaker B's previous statements, showing active listening and topic coherence (e.g., shifting from reading Shakespeare to adaptations based on B's dislike for reading, then focusing on modern adaptations). Speaker B's responses are also directly relevant to Speaker A's questions and introduce coherent new information (e.g., mentioning the Hamlet film).\n\nHowever, there is a minor logical inconsistency in Speaker B's final turn ([00:33 - 00:36]). Speaker A asks, \"Do you think it captures the essence of the original play well?\" Speaker B responds with \"I recommend it,\" which answers the question. But then B adds, \"Huh. Will have to check it out.\" This phrase logically implies that B has *not* seen the film or is unfamiliar with it, which contradicts their earlier statement about it being \"a really interesting film\" and their current recommendation. It sounds as if Speaker B is responding to a recommendation they just received, rather than giving one. While this doesn't completely derail the conversation, it introduces a slight confusion regarding Speaker B's stance on the film's essence or their own experience with it. This is a small logical inconsistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth conversational flow. There are two brief overlaps:\n1.  [00:13 - 00:14] Speaker A cuts in on Speaker B (1 second overlap), explicitly acknowledging it with \"Sorry to cut in.\" This is a natural conversational phenomenon, often indicating engagement and a desire to clarify or follow up immediately on a point. It's not a disruptive or prolonged overlap.\n2.  [00:27 - 00:28] Speaker A cuts in on Speaker B again (1 second overlap). This is also brief and appears to be an enthusiastic response to Speaker B's mention of a modern adaptation. It doesn't hinder the communication flow.\n\nThese brief, acknowledged, or enthusiastic overlaps contribute to the naturalness and dynamism of the conversation rather than detracting from it. Overall, the pacing is excellent, and the interaction feels very natural and engaging.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--4959",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, friends. What's up?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Hey, Cade. Not much. Just hanging out.\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: That's cool. I'm doing great, too. I just ate the last piece of pizza that\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: Wait, the last piece of cake? Who let you have it?\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: I did. I was feeling pretty good about myself, so I decided to treat myself to the last piece of cake.\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: That sounds like a really good idea! We're all jealous of you right now, but we're happy for you, too. You deserved it!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses are consistently relevant and logically consistent throughout the dialogue.\n1.  **Speaker B's initial response** (`[00:02 - 00:04]`) is a direct and appropriate reply to Speaker A's greeting and question.\n2.  **Speaker A's turn** (`[00:04 - 00:10]`) continues the conversational flow by providing a personal update, which is a common and coherent next step in such an interaction.\n3.  **Speaker B's interjection** (`[00:09 - 00:12]`) is a natural clarification question (\"Wait, the last piece of cake?\") prompted by Speaker A's partial statement about \"pizza that\". This shows active listening and a desire for coherence in the narrative.\n4.  **Speaker A's subsequent explanation** (`[00:12 - 00:19]`) directly addresses B's question and elaborates on the \"cake\" incident, maintaining logical consistency.\n5.  **Speaker B's final response** (`[00:19 - 00:25]`) provides an enthusiastic and supportive reaction to Speaker A's story, which is a very coherent and positive interactional follow-up.\nThe topic coherence is strong, focusing on personal updates and reactions to them, with a natural micro-repair/clarification about the \"cake\" vs. \"pizza\".\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is high.\n1.  **Pauses:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's first turn and Speaker B's first response (`[00:01]` to `[00:02]`), which is a natural and acceptable pause in conversation. All other turns begin immediately after the preceding speaker finishes or briefly overlaps. No long pauses are detected.\n2.  **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap between `[00:09 - 00:10]` where Speaker B starts speaking (`Wait, the last piece of cake?`) while Speaker A is still saying `...pizza that`. This is a 1-second overlap. This type of overlap is very common and natural, serving as an interjection for clarification or surprise, and is explicitly permitted by the prompt's rule for \"brief overlaps.\" It does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap. The dialogue flows smoothly without extended periods of speakers talking over each other.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--84033",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I just love reading poems. They make me feel so happy and connected to\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: Free, right? I totally get that. There's something about them that just makes you feel alive.\n[00:09 - 00:18] Speaker A: I know! And it's like, even if nobody else is reading them, I still feel like somebody is reading them with me. Like we're sharing the experience of understanding\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker B: Together, yes! It's like a silent connection with others who have felt the same emotions through the same words.\n[00:23 - 00:32] Speaker A: Exactly! I feel like I'm connected to all these other people who have ever read the same poems as me. It's like we're all part of this big, beautiful community.\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker B: That's so true. And it's also nice to know that we can bring joy to others just by reading our favorite poems.\n[00:39 - 00:46] Speaker A: Absolutely! I feel like that's what poetry is all about - sharing the beauty and joy that exists in the world.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building upon the shared topic of the joy and connection derived from reading poems. Speaker B consistently affirms Speaker A's feelings and elaborates on them (e.g., \"Free, right? I totally get that,\" \"Together, yes!\"). Speaker A reciprocates this engagement, agreeing and expanding on the themes (e.g., \"I know!\", \"Exactly!\", \"Absolutely!\"). The conversation maintains a clear topic coherence, deepening the discussion about the communal and emotional aspects of poetry without any irrelevant remarks or abrupt topic shifts. The speakers actively listen and respond to each other's specific points, demonstrating strong logical consistency.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high. There are a couple of brief overlaps (e.g., Speaker B starting at [00:03] while Speaker A is at [00:04], and Speaker B starting at [00:16] while Speaker A is at [00:18]). However, these overlaps are short (1-2 seconds) and appear to be natural instances of collaborative speech, enthusiastic agreement, or completion of a thought, rather than disruptive interruptions. They contribute to the dynamic and engaged nature of the conversation, showing active listening and eagerness to respond. There are no long or prolonged pauses between speaker turns (the longest is 1 second, which is acceptable), ensuring a smooth and continuous flow of conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--32259",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Hey, Mr. Saunders. I'm sorry for calling so last minute, but I'm not feeling well and won't be able to come into work today.\n[00:09 - 00:10] Speaker B: Oh no, what's wrong? Is\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: I don't know, I just feel really exhausted and thought it would be best to stay home and rest today.\n[00:16 - 00:19] Speaker B: Alright, well take care of yourself and let me know if you need anything.\n[00:20 - 00:21] Speaker A: Thanks, will do.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A's initial statement about not feeling well directly leads to Speaker B's empathetic question. Speaker A's subsequent explanation is a direct and coherent answer to Speaker B's query. Speaker B's concluding remarks are appropriate and supportive given the context of an employee calling in sick to a superior. The conversation maintains a clear topic focus throughout, with each turn building naturally upon the previous one. There are no instances of off-topic remarks, irrelevant questions, or contradictory statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are no extended overlaps where speakers are talking over each other for prolonged periods. The slight cut-off of Speaker B's \"Is\" at [00:09 - 00:10] followed immediately by Speaker A's response at [00:10 - 00:15] indicates very natural, quick turn-taking, typical of real-time conversation and not indicative of a harmful overlap. Similarly, there are no long pauses between speaker turns; the conversation flows smoothly from one speaker to the next without any awkward silences. The timing of responses feels natural and efficient.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--150",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Look, here is a copy of the Washington Post. Do you know when it was founded?\n[00:05 - 00:14] Speaker B: I happened to have a book right here about the development of newspapers. Let me see. Oh, it was founded in December eighteen seventy-seven by Stilson Hutchens, who\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but do you know which newspaper is older, the New York Times or the Washington Post?\n[00:19 - 00:30] Speaker B: The New York Times. It was founded in September eighteen fifty-one by Henry Raymond and George Jones. But I was about to mention that Stilson Hutchens was the founder of the Washington Post.\n[00:30 - 00:34] Speaker A: Got it, thanks! And how about the Los Angeles Times?\n[00:34 - 00:46] Speaker B: It was first published in December eighteen eighty-one, under the direction of Nathan Cole Junior and Thomas Guardineer. Interestingly, it was initially started to counter the influence of the Southern Pacific Railroad.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B consistently answers Speaker A's questions directly and provides specific, factual information (founding dates, founders). For instance, Speaker B accurately provides the founding details for the Washington Post, then correctly identifies the New York Times as older, and finally gives details for the Los Angeles Times. The topic coherence is excellent; Speaker A's questions build on the previous turn, moving from one newspaper's founding to comparing two, and then to a third, while Speaker B follows these transitions smoothly. Speaker B also attempts to circle back and complete the thought that was interrupted (\"But I was about to mention that Stilson Hutchens was the founder of the Washington Post.\"), which further enhances coherence and demonstrates active listening and memory.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction generally flows well with no long pauses between turns. However, there is a clear instance of an overlapping turn at [00:13 - 00:19] where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B mid-sentence. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this interruption with \"Sorry to interrupt.\" While this is an \"overlapping turn\" and could be considered disruptive, Speaker B manages it very gracefully by first addressing the new question and then attempting to return to their original point, preventing any breakdown in communication or coherence. This adaptive behavior by Speaker B mitigates the potential harm of the interruption, allowing the conversation to remain natural and effective. Given that there are no other significant issues with fluency and the single interruption is well-managed, the interaction remains highly fluent.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--629",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: When do you think the PlayStation 5 will come out?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I think next year! Maybe around\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker A: Next year? I heard some rumors it might be earlier. Do you think that's possible?\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: Oh, that's exciting! Are you planning to get one?\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: Definitely, I am so looking forward to getting my hands on it! I am wondering if it will be out for the holidays, though. That would\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker B: If it comes out for the holidays, it would be the perfect gift! By the way, have you heard anything about the expected price?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A initiates the conversation about the PS5 release, and Speaker B responds directly. The conversation naturally evolves from the release date to personal excitement and potential holiday release, then to pricing. Each turn builds upon the previous one, introducing related sub-topics (e.g., rumors of earlier release, plans to buy, holiday release, price) that maintain overall topic coherence. There are no irrelevant remarks or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two brief overlaps: Speaker A speaking from [00:03 - 00:08] overlaps with Speaker B ending at [00:04], and Speaker B speaking from [00:18 - 00:25] overlaps with Speaker A ending at [00:19]. Both overlaps are approximately 1 second in duration. The prompt states that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these fall within that acceptable range. There is also a small 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn ending at [00:11] and Speaker A's turn starting at [00:12], which is also acceptable. There are no prolonged pauses or extended overlapping turns that would disrupt the flow. The conversation feels natural and dynamic.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--31",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What's wrong with you, Mr. Polly?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: What's wrong? I want a break from this horrible situation at\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but what exactly is making your job so unbearable? Is it the workload, or something else?\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker B: It's the workload, the monotony... everything. I just need a moment to breathe. Would you like to buy a bottle for me in the shop?\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker A: It's a problem, because my boss is in that shop now.\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B: Ok, I will go there myself. Sorry, Mr. Polly.\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker A: It doesn't matter. Oh, God, I have only four dollars in my wallet. Is that possible for me to get something\n[00:33 - 00:41] Speaker B: Oh, before you go, I just remembered—why did you ask me to buy the drink in the first place? Was it just because you didn't want to run into your boss?\n[00:41 - 00:48] Speaker A: Yes, exactly. I wanted to avoid them. But back to my wallet, do you think four dollars is enough to buy a drink?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance and logical consistency.\n\n1.  **[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker B:** After explaining their job woes, Speaker B abruptly shifts to asking Speaker A to buy a bottle for them. This transition is not logically connected to the preceding complaint about workload and monotony. It's an out-of-context request.\n2.  **[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker A:** Speaker A dismisses Speaker B's apology and then immediately introduces a completely unrelated topic about their own financial situation (\"I have only four dollars in my wallet. Is that possible for me to get something\"). This has no bearing on Speaker B's job problems or the previous discussion about the shop.\n3.  **[00:33 - 00:41] Speaker B:** Speaker B completely ignores Speaker A's new topic about money and instead reverts to a previous point, asking for clarification on why Speaker A couldn't go to the shop initially. This demonstrates a clear lack of topic coherence and an inability to follow the current thread of conversation.\n4.  **[00:41 - 00:48] Speaker A:** Speaker A answers Speaker B's reverted question but immediately tries to bring the conversation back to their money problem, which Speaker B had just ignored. This creates a disjointed and unnatural flow, where speakers are not building on each other's contributions but rather introducing or re-introducing unrelated topics.\n\nOverall, the conversation jumps erratically between topics, with speakers often ignoring or abruptly changing the subject without proper transitions. This makes the dialogue feel illogical and incoherent.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is acceptable. There are two instances of brief overlaps, but they are short (approximately 1 second each) and seem to be natural interjections rather than prolonged or disruptive turns.\n1.  **[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B:** Speaker A explicitly says \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating awareness and politeness, making this an acceptable brief overlap.\n2.  **[00:33 - 00:41] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A:** Speaker B starts with \"Oh, before you go,\" which sounds like a natural way to interject a quick question before the other person moves on. This is also a brief and acceptable overlap.\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--125105",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, how's it going?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Not too bad. Just getting through the day.\n[00:04 - 00:13] Speaker A: Yeah, I know what you mean. These days just seem to drag on forever. But it's nice to have something to look forward to at the end of the day, right?\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker B: Definitely. So, what do you like doing in\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but I just remembered—what do you usually do to unwind after a long day?\n[00:21 - 00:30] Speaker B: I'm really into music, so I like to play guitar and sing whenever I can. I'm also a big fan of movies and TV shows. How about you? What are some of your hobbies?\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker A: Well, I love reading and spending time outdoors. Hiking and camping are some of my favorite things to do.\n[00:38 - 00:44] Speaker B: That sounds really cool! I've always wanted to try camping, but I've never had the chance. Maybe we could go sometime?\n[00:44 - 00:48] Speaker A: Yeah, that would be fun! I'm sure we could find a time that works\n[00:48 - 00:52] Speaker B: Actually, before we plan, do you have any favorite camping spots or places you'd recommend?\n[00:53 - 01:00] Speaker A: Oh, definitely! There's this amazing spot near the lake that's perfect for a weekend getaway. We could start there.\n[01:01 - 01:03] Speaker B: Sounds perfect. I'll look forward to it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance throughout.\n- Speaker B's initial response \"Not too bad. Just getting through the day\" is a direct and logical reply to Speaker A's greeting.\n- Speaker A's \"Yeah, I know what you mean... But it's nice to have something to look forward to at the end of the day, right?\" logically builds on Speaker B's sentiment and introduces a new, related topic.\n- The interaction where Speaker A cuts in (\"Sorry to cut in, but I just remembered—what do you usually do to unwind after a long day?\") is highly relevant, picking up on the implied direction of Speaker B's truncated question and directly addressing the theme of \"looking forward to\" something at the end of the day.\n- Speaker B's detailed answer about music, movies, and TV shows, followed by reciprocation of the question, is perfectly relevant.\n- Speaker A's response about reading, hiking, and camping is a direct and coherent answer.\n- Speaker B's enthusiasm for camping and the suggestion to go together is a natural and highly relevant progression of the conversation, showing active engagement.\n- Speaker A's positive affirmation (\"Yeah, that would be fun!\") and Speaker B's immediate follow-up about specific camping spots demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence, moving the conversation towards a concrete plan.\n- Speaker A's recommendation of a spot near the lake and Speaker B's positive closing remark further solidify the relevance.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses, illogical jumps, or topic incoherence. The conversation flows naturally and builds upon previous turns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is very good.\n- **Pauses:** There are minimal pauses, typically 1 second (e.g., [00:01 - 00:02] and [00:52 - 00:53]), which are natural in conversation and do not constitute \"long pauses\" that would be harmful. Most transitions are immediate or very quick.\n- **Overlaps:** One brief overlap is noted between [00:15 - 00:16] where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still in the middle of their sentence. However, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to cut in,\" which is a clear sign of conversational awareness and polite turn-taking management. This is a \"brief overlap\" (1 second) and is explicitly handled, making it acceptable and not harmful to fluency. The prompt states that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\"\n- The transition at [00:48] where Speaker B starts speaking precisely when Speaker A finishes indicates excellent turn-taking and smooth flow, rather than an overlap or a pause.\nOverall, the dialogue demonstrates natural pacing and effective turn-taking without any disruptive prolonged pauses or uncontrolled extended overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--401",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hey, did you see the new French film that just came out? It's called The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: What? There's a second one? I hate sequels.\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker A: Yeah, me too! That's why I like to watch French films - they don't have many sequels.\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker B: I could try learning some French.\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker A: Oh, I would love to learn more about French cinema. What's your favorite French film?\n[00:24 - 00:30] Speaker B: There's a film called The Intouchables. It's about a wealthy quadriplegic who hires a poor black man to\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker A: Wait, do you mean the one where they form an unlikely friendship? I've heard so much about it!\n[00:35 - 00:43] Speaker B: Yes, it's a really uplifting story. I was also a big fan of Departures. It's about a flight attendant who was not able to fly after she lost her hearing.\n[00:43 - 00:50] Speaker A: Did the main character still take the job even after she lost her hearing? I'm surprised she would be able\n[00:49 - 00:54] Speaker B: Yes, she decided to accept a position at a small local airport because it's close to her family.\n[00:55 - 00:56] Speaker A: That's so admirable.\n[00:57 - 01:01] Speaker B: Yes! And she learned sign language because she needed to communicate with her passengers.\n[01:02 - 01:06] Speaker A: I can really get behind that. How come you took French?\n[01:06 - 01:09] Speaker B: My parents thought I should take French in college.\n[01:09 - 01:10] Speaker A: Did you learn much?\n[01:11 - 01:16] Speaker B: Not really. But I did like traveling to France because I could actually understand what the people were saying!\n[01:16 - 01:20] Speaker A: That must have been nice. Do you remember any French phrases?\n[01:20 - 01:23] Speaker B: Well, the only French phrase I remember is \"ça va aller.\"\n[01:24 - 01:29] Speaker A: That's a pretty useful phrase. Well, that's all I have for now. I'll let you go.\n[01:30 - 01:30] Speaker B: Bonjour.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues in response relevance, specifically concerning logical consistency and topic coherence related to the subject matter.\n\n1.  **Initial Factual Error and Perpetuation:** Speaker A introduces \"The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2\" as a \"new French film.\" This is factually incorrect, as it is an American film. Speaker B responds as if it is a French film, and Speaker A reinforces this incorrect premise (\"That's why I like to watch French films - they don't have many sequels.\"). This establishes a flawed foundation for the conversation about \"French films.\"\n2.  **Further Factual Error:** Later, Speaker B introduces \"Departures\" as another film, which is also not a French film (it is Japanese). Both speakers proceed to discuss this film under the implicit assumption that it is French, continuing the pattern of factual inaccuracy.\n\nWhile the conversational flow within the turns is logical (questions are answered, topics are elaborated upon), the *underlying premise* of discussing French cinema is undermined by the consistent misidentification of films. The conversation lacks logical consistency in its core subject matter (\"French films\") because the examples provided are not French. This leads to a lack of true topic coherence if the topic is *accurately* about French films. If the topic were broadly about \"films,\" it would be coherent, but the explicit framing is \"French film,\" which is not maintained factually.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n\n1.  **No Long Pauses:** There are no instances of prolonged silence between speaker turns. The pauses are consistently brief (0-1 second), which is natural and contributes to a smooth conversational rhythm.\n2.  **Brief, Natural Overlaps:** There are a couple of very brief overlaps (e.g., at [00:29] and [00:49]). These are short (around 1 second) and appear to be natural interjections or quick responses that do not disrupt comprehension or hinder the flow of communication. For example, Speaker A's \"Wait, do you mean...\" is a natural clarification, and Speaker B's \"Yes, she decided...\" is a quick affirmation and response. These brief overlaps indicate active listening and engagement rather than problematic interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--145347",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Thank you so much for accepting my offer on your home. I'm really excited to start the next chapter of my life here.\n[00:07 - 00:16] Speaker B: You're welcome! I'm glad that you loved the house as much as I do. It's been a great place to live, and I know you'll enjoy it just as much. Thanks again for your patience during\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker A: Oh, speaking of which, do you need any help with the packing? I know it can be overwhelming.\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker B: That's very kind of you to offer, but I think I've got it covered. Probably in a couple of weeks, I just need to finish packing everything up and getting everything in order.\n[00:29 - 00:37] Speaker A: Okay, that sounds good. I'll be sure to have the movers come over then so we can get everything moved out as quickly as possible.\n[00:38 - 00:40] Speaker B: Sounds like a plan. Thanks again for buying the house!\n[00:41 - 00:45] Speaker A: No problem at all. I'm really looking forward to making it my own.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance.\n1.  Speaker A's initial statement (00:00-00:06) expresses gratitude and excitement about the house purchase.\n2.  Speaker B's response (00:07-00:16) directly addresses Speaker A's sentiment, showing pleasure and acknowledging the house's value, which is a relevant continuation of the house sale topic. The slight trailing off with \"patience during\" is slightly incomplete but doesn't detract from the overall relevance, as patience is often involved in house transactions.\n3.  Speaker A's follow-up (00:15-00:20), despite the overlap, smoothly transitions to offering help with packing, which is a logical next step after a house sale (\"speaking of which\").\n4.  Speaker B's response (00:21-00:28) is a direct and polite answer to the offer, including a timeframe, which is perfectly relevant.\n5.  Speaker A's subsequent turn (00:29-00:37) acknowledges Speaker B's timeframe and makes a practical plan for the movers, showing good logical consistency.\n6.  The closing exchange (00:38-00:45) consists of Speaker B re-thanking A and A's natural, positive reply.\nThe conversation maintains a clear topic and flows logically from the initial agreement to practical next steps, and then to a pleasant closing.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\nThere are no long pauses detected between speaker turns.\nThere is one extended overlap identified:\n-   `[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker A:` starts at 00:15, while `[00:07 - 00:16] Speaker B:` ends at 00:16. This results in a 1-second overlap.\nAs per the guidelines, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" A 1-second overlap falls into the category of a brief overlap. In this context, Speaker A interjects with \"Oh, speaking of which...\" right as Speaker B is finishing their thought, which is a very natural and common occurrence in casual conversation. It does not appear to hinder communication or make the dialogue unnatural or difficult to follow. Rather, it contributes to a dynamic and realistic conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--69400",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, how are you doing today?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm doing well, Shea. How are you?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm doing alright. I just wanted to get a haircut maybe something\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B: Oh, before I forget, do you have any specific event coming up that you want this haircut for?\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker A: No, nothing special, just felt like a change. I was thinking maybe something short on the sides and back, with a little bit of length on top.\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker B: That sounds like a good idea. I can definitely do that for you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n*   **[00:00 - 00:05]**: The initial greetings and reciprocal questions are perfectly logical and relevant for opening a conversation.\n*   **[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A**: Speaker A states their purpose clearly, \"I just wanted to get a haircut,\" which sets the topic.\n*   **[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B**: Speaker B's question, \"Do you have any specific event coming up that you want this haircut for?\", is highly relevant and a logical clarifying question a stylist would ask to understand the client's needs and context for the haircut.\n*   **[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker A**: Speaker A directly answers B's question and then elaborates on their desired style, providing the necessary details for the service. This is completely relevant to the topic of getting a haircut.\n*   **[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker B**: Speaker B's final response acknowledges A's description and confirms their ability to perform the service, maintaining topic coherence and logical progression.\nThe conversation stays entirely on topic, and each turn builds naturally on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction shows good fluency with only one brief overlap and no long pauses.\n*   There are no noticeable long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and natural.\n*   An overlap occurs between [00:08] and [00:09], where Speaker B starts speaking at [00:08] while Speaker A is still speaking until [00:09]. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A's sentence (\"maybe something\") seems to be trailing off, and Speaker B interjects with a relevant question. This kind of brief, natural overlap, especially when one speaker is finishing an thought or trailing off, is common in fluid, natural conversation and does not hinder understanding or flow. It falls under the \"brief overlaps are acceptable\" criterion.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking contribute to a natural and fluent interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--83543",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey! I haven't seen you in forever. How have you been?\n[00:04 - 00:12] Speaker B: I've been good, thanks for asking. I've been busy with work and taking care of my family, but it's all good. So what about you? What have you been thinking about?\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: Actually, before I answer that, how's your family? I remember your sister was expecting—did she have the baby yet?\n[00:18 - 00:28] Speaker B: Oh yes! My sister just had her first baby, so we're all really happy for her. My mom is doing good too, but she's getting a little bit forgetful these days. And my dad is still working hard.\n[00:29 - 00:36] Speaker A: Aww, that's so great! I'm really happy for your family. So what are you up to now? Are you still working at the same place?\n[00:37 - 00:41] Speaker B: Yeah, I am. I love my job, but I'm thinking about pursuing a\n[00:40 - 00:45] Speaker A: Oh, are you thinking of switching careers or just moving to a new company?\n[00:45 - 00:49] Speaker B: I'm not sure what I want to do yet, but I'll figure it out eventually.\n[00:49 - 00:55] Speaker A: That's great! Change can be really good for you. I'm sure you'll make the right decision when the time comes.\n[00:56 - 00:59] Speaker B: Thanks, Lorene. I appreciate your support.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **Opening:** Speaker A's \"How have you been?\" is met with Speaker B's direct answer and a reciprocal question, maintaining the conversational flow.\n2.  **Topic Shift (Family):** Speaker A naturally transitions to asking about Speaker B's family, prompted by B's mention of \"taking care of my family.\" This is a highly coherent follow-up. Speaker B then provides a detailed and relevant update.\n3.  **Topic Shift (Work/Career):** Speaker A moves the conversation from family to work (\"So what are you up to now? Are you still working at the same place?\"), which is a common and natural progression in a catching-up conversation. Speaker B responds directly.\n4.  **Clarification/Elaboration:** When Speaker B indicates thinking about \"pursuing a,\" Speaker A immediately asks a relevant clarifying question (\"Oh, are you thinking of switching careers or just moving to a new company?\"). This shows active listening and helps B elaborate.\n5.  **Supportive Closing:** Speaker A's supportive comments (\"That's great! Change can be really good for you...\") are relevant and appropriate responses to Speaker B's expression of career contemplation.\nOverall, the dialogue maintains clear topic coherence, and each speaker's turn logically builds upon or responds to the previous one. There are no irrelevant tangents or misunderstood questions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates good interactional fluency with only brief, acceptable overlaps and no long pauses.\n1.  **[00:11 - 00:12] Overlap:** Speaker A begins speaking at [00:11] while Speaker B is still speaking until [00:12]. This is a 1-second overlap. This type of brief overlap is common in natural conversation, often indicating active listening or eagerness to engage. It doesn't disrupt the flow or create confusion.\n2.  **[00:40 - 00:41] Overlap:** Speaker A begins at [00:40] while Speaker B is still speaking until [00:41]. This is also a 1-second overlap. In this instance, Speaker A is asking a clarifying question (\"Oh, are you thinking of switching careers...\") as Speaker B is pausing or searching for the right words (\"pursuing a\"), which is a very natural conversational move to prompt or clarify.\nThere are no instances of long pauses between turns. The turn-taking is prompt and responsive, contributing to a natural and fluid conversation. The brief overlaps fall within the acceptable range and do not indicate issues with fluency or mutual understanding.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--168",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Where is Pamela? Is she coming? She told me she'd be here by\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but they are announcing your flight. You'd better board the plane.\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker A: Are you rushing me?\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker B: I am just reminding you about the time. You don't want to miss the plane, do you?\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker A: I know what I am doing. Don't worry. Can you do me a favor?\n[00:18 - 00:19] Speaker B: Name it and I'll do it for you.\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker A: Take care of Pamela when I am away. She is a nice girl. I don't want her to get hurt or anything.\n[00:26 - 00:27] Speaker B: I've got it.\n[00:27 - 00:36] Speaker A: Thank you. Now I see that you are my true friend. Most of my so-called friends left me at the moment my company went under, and\n[00:35 - 00:42] Speaker B: Bankrupt, right? I remember that time. But speaking of Pamela, you mentioned she was supposed to be here—do you think something happened?\n[00:42 - 00:50] Speaker A: Yeah, she told me she'd be here, but I guess I'll have to check in with her later. Anyway, you are the only one who has stood by me the whole time.\n[00:50 - 00:53] Speaker B: I am just doing what I think I should do.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\nSpeaker B's initial interruption (\"Sorry to cut in, but they are announcing your flight\") is highly relevant given the context (airport, urgent information) and is explicitly acknowledged as an interruption, making it logically consistent with a real-world urgent scenario.\nSubsequent turns follow a clear logical flow: Speaker A's questioning of B's haste, B's clarification, A's assertion of competence followed by a request for a favor, and B's agreement.\nThe topic shifts are natural: from Pamela, to the flight, back to Pamela implicitly through the favor, then to Speaker A's personal struggles and gratitude, which Speaker B skillfully brings back to the original topic of Pamela (\"But speaking of Pamela, you mentioned she was supposed to be here—do you think something happened?\"). This demonstrates good topic management, allowing for emotional expression while ensuring key points are addressed. The conversation flows organically, even with the shifts, maintaining coherence throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\nThere are two instances of overlaps:\n1.  `[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B:` overlaps `[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A:`. This is a brief overlap of about 1 second. Speaker B explicitly states \"Sorry to cut in,\" which indicates awareness and justification for the interruption due to urgent information. This is a natural and acceptable brief overlap in a dynamic conversation.\n2.  `[00:35 - 00:42] Speaker B:` overlaps `[00:27 - 00:36] Speaker A:`. This is also a brief overlap of about 1 second. Speaker B completes Speaker A's sentence (\"Bankrupt, right?\"), which is a common and often collaborative feature of natural conversation, not a detrimental interruption.\n\nThere are no extended or prolonged pauses between speaker turns. Most turns follow immediately or with a 1-second gap, indicating a responsive and natural conversational rhythm. The brief overlaps and minimal pauses suggest a highly fluent and engaging interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--171",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Excuse me. I'm a stranger here and lost my way around\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Can I help you?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: Sure. Can I get to the central department stall this way?\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Uh. . . Yes. Turn right, then take the second turning on your left, and\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker A: Sorry, just to clarify, is it far from here?\n[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: It's about fifteen minutes' walk. By the way, I was saying you need to take the second turning on your left.\n[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker A: Got it. And do you know where the national bank is?\n[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker B: Yes. It's on this street. Keep walking for two blocks and it's on the corner on the right.\n[00:29 - 00:30] Speaker A: Thanks very much.\n[00:30 - 00:32] Speaker B: You are welcome. Good luck.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Excuse me. I'm a stranger here and lost my way around**\n    **[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Can I help you?**\n    *   Speaker B's response is a direct and logical follow-up to Speaker A's statement of being lost, offering assistance.\n2.  **[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: Sure. Can I get to the central department stall this way?**\n    **[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Uh. . . Yes. Turn right, then take the second turning on your left, and**\n    *   Speaker A accepts the offer and asks for specific directions, maintaining topic coherence. Speaker B provides relevant directional information. The \"Uh...\" is a natural hesitation.\n3.  **[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker A: Sorry, just to clarify, is it far from here?**\n    *   Speaker A's question is a relevant clarification about the distance, which is a common and logical follow-up when receiving directions.\n4.  **[00:15 - 00:20] Speaker B: It's about fifteen minutes' walk. By the way, I was saying you need to take the second turning on your left.**\n    *   Speaker B directly answers the clarification question first, then smoothly returns to complete the interrupted instruction. This demonstrates excellent logical consistency and coherence, showing B's ability to manage the flow and ensure all necessary information is conveyed.\n5.  **[00:20 - 00:23] Speaker A: Got it. And do you know where the national bank is?**\n    *   Speaker A acknowledges understanding and then introduces a new, but related, request for directions. This is a natural progression for someone seeking help with navigation in an unfamiliar place.\n6.  **[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker B: Yes. It's on this street. Keep walking for two blocks and it's on the corner on the right.**\n    *   Speaker B provides clear and relevant directions for the new location.\n7.  **[00:29 - 00:30] Speaker A: Thanks very much.**\n    **[00:30 - 00:32] Speaker B: You are welcome. Good luck.**\n    *   The closing remarks are standard, polite, and logically conclude the interaction.\n\nOverall, the conversation flows logically, each turn is a relevant response to the previous one, and the topic remains consistent (seeking/giving directions) with natural transitions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent, demonstrating natural conversational dynamics without disruptive issues.\n1.  **Overlaps:**\n    *   **[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Can I help you?** This is a brief, natural overlap where Speaker B anticipates Speaker A's need and offers help quickly. It's common in fluent conversation and not an \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" overlap.\n    *   **[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker A: Sorry, just to clarify, is it far from here?** Speaker A interrupts Speaker B's ongoing turn. While an interruption, it's brief and serves the clear purpose of seeking immediate clarification. Speaker B handles it well by addressing the clarification and then resuming the original instruction. This type of brief, purposeful interruption is a feature of natural, dynamic conversation, not a flaw indicating poor fluency or \"overlapping turns\" in the harmful sense. It does not lead to both speakers speaking for an extended period over each other.\n    *   There are no other extended or disruptive overlaps.\n2.  **Pauses:**\n    *   There are small pauses between turns (e.g., 1-second gaps at 00:06-00:07, 00:14-00:15, 00:23-00:24). These are very natural \"thinking\" or \"processing\" pauses and are far from \"long pauses.\" They allow for turn-taking to feel unhurried but still efficient.\n    *   The \"Uh...\" from Speaker B at 00:07 also indicates a natural thinking process, contributing to realism rather than poor fluency.\n\nThe interaction flows smoothly with appropriate turn-taking and natural conversational nuances.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--438",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: How do you stretch after working out?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: I use a foam roller and some other free weight equipment. It helps\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I just realized, do you think using free weights for stretching is safe for everyone?\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: It depends on the person's experience and form. That's a pretty intense workout! Do you do it every day?\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker A: Yeah, I really like working out. Have you considered incorporating any\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker B: Actually, I wanted to mention that adding some variety, like yoga, can really benefit your flexibility and recovery.\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker A: I'm not sure, I'll have to look into that!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance in this dialogue is generally acceptable, but with some notable deviations, particularly from Speaker B.\n- At [00:02 - 00:05], Speaker B's response about foam rollers and free weight equipment is relevant to Speaker A's question about stretching.\n- At [00:05 - 00:11], Speaker A's follow-up question about the safety of using free weights for stretching is a logical and relevant clarification to B's previous statement.\n- At [00:11 - 00:17], Speaker B initially responds relevantly about experience and form regarding safety. However, Speaker B then abruptly shifts the topic with \"That's a pretty intense workout! Do you do it every day?\" This is a non-sequitur to the discussion of free weights for stretching safety and shifts the focus to Speaker A's workout habits, which was not the immediate topic. This reduces logical consistency.\n- At [00:18 - 00:23], Speaker A starts to respond to B's new question but is cut off.\n- At [00:22 - 00:28], Speaker B interjects with a new suggestion about yoga. While it relates to flexibility and recovery, it's introduced as a new thought (\"Actually, I wanted to mention...\") rather than a direct response to Speaker A's incomplete statement/question at [00:18 - 00:23]. This feels like B is trying to steer the conversation without fully engaging with A's previous turn, impacting topic coherence.\n- At [00:28 - 00:31], Speaker A's response is relevant to B's suggestion.\n\nOverall, the logical consistency and topic coherence are somewhat compromised by Speaker B's tendency to introduce new, somewhat unrelated tangents or to interject pre-planned thoughts without fully addressing the previous turn.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency shows clear issues with overlapping turns.\n- At [00:05 - 00:11], Speaker A interrupts Speaker B (\"Sorry to interrupt\"). Speaker A's turn starts at 00:05, and Speaker B's turn ends at 00:05. This is a direct overlap. While Speaker A acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption, it is still an overlapping turn. However, the prompt states \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" Given the apology, this one might lean towards acceptable, but it's noted.\n- At [00:22 - 00:28], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. Speaker B's turn starts at 00:22, while Speaker A's turn ends at 00:23. This is a clear instance of Speaker B cutting off Speaker A mid-sentence. This is an \"overlapping turn\" and is explicitly noted as \"harmful\" in the criteria. There are no long pauses, but this significant overlap negatively impacts the interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--24606",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi, Patrice. You look like you're not enjoying the party\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but I just wanted to ask—why don't you like dancing?\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm not really a fan of dancing. It's just not my thing.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: Well, you shouldn't just sit here by yourself then. Come dance with me!\n[00:16 - 00:17] Speaker A: I don't know...\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker B: Come on, it'll be fun! I promise.\n[00:20 - 00:21] Speaker A: Alright, fine.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits good logical consistency and topic coherence overall. Speaker A begins by observing Speaker B's apparent lack of enjoyment at the party. Speaker B then, somewhat abruptly but with an apology (\"Sorry to jump in\"), pivots the conversation to dancing, assuming Speaker A's disinterest in it. While Speaker A hadn't explicitly stated a dislike for dancing, their subsequent response (\"Yeah, I'm not really a fan of dancing. It's just not my thing.\") validates Speaker B's premise. From this point on, the conversation logically progresses with Speaker B attempting to persuade Speaker A to dance, and Speaker A expressing initial reluctance followed by eventual agreement. The topic remains consistently focused on dancing and Speaker A's participation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is quite natural. There are several instances of immediate turn-taking or very brief overlaps (e.g., Speaker B starts at 0:03 while Speaker A's turn ends at 0:03, Speaker A at 0:16 following Speaker B's 0:16 end, Speaker A at 0:20 following Speaker B's 0:20 end). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges one instance with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which indicates a natural, albeit interruptive, flow. There are no long pauses between turns. The rapid back-and-forth exchange, especially during the persuasion sequence, contributes to a dynamic and realistic conversational rhythm. According to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this dialogue fits that description well. There are no \"prolonged pauses\" or \"extended overlaps.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--122956",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi Mrs. Richards, it's Umar from school. How are you?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: Oh, hi Umar. I'm doing well, thank you. How are you?\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: I'm good, thanks. I was just calling to check in on Tommy and see how he's been adjusting\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker B: Actually, I was about to call the school myself. Tommy has been a bit down lately, and I was wondering if you've noticed anything unusual?\n[00:20 - 00:29] Speaker A: I haven't noticed anything specific at school, but you mentioned earlier that he's been having a hard time at home with his little sister being sick. Do you think that's affecting him?\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker B: Yes, it's been really tough on him. His sister's illness has taken a toll on the whole family.\n[00:35 - 00:43] Speaker A: That sounds really difficult. If there's anything I can do to support Tommy at school, please don't hesitate to reach out.\n[00:43 - 00:49] Speaker B: Thank you, Umar. I really appreciate that. We'll keep managing as best as we can, but it's good to know you're there to help.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance throughout. Each speaker's turn logically follows the preceding one, demonstrating clear understanding and engagement with the conversation's flow.\n- Speaker A initiates the call with a clear purpose (checking on Tommy), which Speaker B immediately aligns with by revealing a related concern.\n- Speaker A then connects Speaker B's observation to a previously mentioned factor (sister's illness), demonstrating logical reasoning and recall.\n- Speaker B confirms this connection and elaborates, maintaining topic coherence.\n- Speaker A responds with empathy and an offer of support, a natural and relevant conclusion to the discussion about Tommy's well-being.\n- Speaker B's final turn expresses gratitude and acknowledges the support, bringing a natural close to this part of the interaction.\nThere are no instances of off-topic remarks, misunderstandings, or illogical jumps in conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is excellent.\n- There is one instance of a brief overlap ([0:12 - 0:19] Speaker B starts while Speaker A is finishing [0:08 - 0:13]). Specifically, Speaker B starts at 0:12 while Speaker A ends at 0:13, resulting in a 1-second overlap. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This overlap feels natural, indicating an eagerness from Speaker B to share information that directly relates to Speaker A's stated purpose.\n- All pauses between turns are very short (typically 1 second or immediate transitions, e.g., 0:19-0:20, 0:29-0:30, 0:35-0:35, 0:43-0:43). These are well within the \"small pauses\" category and do not disrupt the flow.\nThere are no prolonged pauses or extended overlaps that would hinder the conversational rhythm or indicate any issues in turn-taking. The conversation flows smoothly and naturally.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--292",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Well, I'd better get back to work. I've got a ton of stuff on my desk that\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Oh, before you go, did you still want to catch a ride with me after work?\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker A: Yeah, definitely. I was hoping to catch a ride with you. But I was just saying I have a ton of stuff on my desk that I need to finish before then.\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker B: Sure, I get it. Meet me at five?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n- Speaker A states a need to return to work, setting the context of impending departure.\n- Speaker B's immediate interjection (\"Oh, before you go...\") directly addresses Speaker A's stated action and introduces a relevant follow-up question about a prior arrangement (\"catch a ride\"). This shows good topic coherence and quick uptake.\n- Speaker A's response confirms the desire for the ride and logically connects it back to the initial statement about having \"a ton of stuff,\" explaining a potential constraint. This demonstrates logical consistency.\n- Speaker B acknowledges Speaker A's constraint (\"Sure, I get it\") and then provides a practical solution/next step by proposing a time (\"Meet me at five?\"), moving the conversation forward efficiently.\nEach turn builds coherently on the previous one, addressing the core topics (work, leaving, ride) in a clear and logical manner.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates good fluency.\n- There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker A (ends 0:04) and Speaker B (starts 0:03). Speaker B interjects with \"Oh, before you go...\" as Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This type of brief, anticipatory overlap is very common and natural in conversational turn-taking, especially when someone wants to interject quickly before the other speaker concludes their turn or action (like leaving). It doesn't appear prolonged or disruptive.\n- There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn (ends 0:15) and Speaker B's turn (starts 0:16). This is a very short, natural pause that allows for processing and turn-taking, and does not constitute a \"long pause.\"\nNo prolonged pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps are present. The timing feels natural for a concise and efficient exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--362",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: You're all set now?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Oh, thank you so much.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: Really, it was no trouble\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: I just want to say, I couldn't have done it without you. How did you manage to get everything sorted so quickly?\n[00:10 - 00:19] Speaker A: It was nothing, really. I just had some experience with similar situations before. But I noticed you were about to say something earlier—what was it?\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B: Oh, I just wanted to express how much I appreciated it.\n[00:24 - 00:25] Speaker A: I was happy to help.\n[00:25 - 00:26] Speaker B: It was so kind of you.\n[00:27 - 00:28] Speaker A: Don't mention it.\n[00:28 - 00:30] Speaker B: You're a real friend in need.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and demonstrate strong logical consistency. Speaker B consistently expresses gratitude and asks follow-up questions related to Speaker A's help. Speaker A, in turn, downplays their assistance and actively listens, even recalling a point Speaker B was about to make earlier (\"But I noticed you were about to say something earlier—what was it?\"). This shows excellent attentiveness and a desire to keep the conversation flowing naturally. The topic remains coherent throughout, centered on the theme of gratitude and the helpful action. There are no irrelevant statements or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are a couple of brief overlaps:\n- At [00:04 - 00:05], Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This is a brief, 1-second overlap, which is common in natural conversation and indicates eagerness or strong engagement rather than interruption.\n- At [00:25 - 00:26], Speaker B starts immediately after Speaker A, almost simultaneously, which is also a very natural aspect of fluid conversational turn-taking.\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns. The gaps are consistently short (typically 1 second or less), contributing to a very natural and flowing conversational rhythm. The dialogue feels spontaneous and unforced.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--48388",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: It's so nice out today, isn't it?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: Yeah, it really is. The weather has been great lately, and\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Speaking of the weather, do you think it's going to stay like this? I was planning to go hiking this weekend.\n[00:11 - 00:20] Speaker B: I think it should be fine, but you might want to check the forecast just in case. I've been enjoying spending time outdoors lately too. It's just so peaceful and calming.\n[00:20 - 00:28] Speaker A: I can definitely understand that. There's something about being in nature that can be really refreshing and invigorating.\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker B: Absolutely. I think it's important to take time for yourself and just enjoy the simple things in life.\n[00:34 - 00:36] Speaker A: I couldn't agree more.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates with a comment on the weather, and Speaker B responds directly and elaborates. Speaker A then naturally transitions to a related question about the weather forecast for hiking, which Speaker B addresses while also sharing a related personal experience. Speaker A acknowledges and expands on Speaker B's sentiment about nature, leading to Speaker B's broader reflection on self-care and simple pleasures. Speaker A concludes with strong agreement. The conversation flows very naturally from one idea to the next, maintaining relevance throughout and building on previous turns without any irrelevant interjections or illogical jumps.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits high interactional fluency. There is a very brief overlap at [00:05] where Speaker A begins speaking just as Speaker B is finishing their sentence. However, this is a minor, natural overlap common in conversational turn-taking and falls under the \"brief overlaps... are acceptable\" category, not an \"extended overlap.\" There is also a small 1-second pause between [00:28] and [00:29], which is well within the \"small pauses... are acceptable\" criteria. No prolonged pauses or extended overlapping turns are present. The pacing and turn-taking feel natural and smooth, contributing to an excellent conversational flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--99763",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:16] Speaker A: Well, there's a lot going on, as always. Let's see, in the US, there was a big court ruling today on immigration. The Supreme Court ruled that immigrants who are in the country illegally cannot be deported without first having a hearing before a judge, which\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but does this mean that every immigrant, regardless of their situation, has the right to a hearing now?\n[00:21 - 00:33] Speaker A: Yes, exactly. They can't be deported without due process of law. They have to be given a chance to argue their case before a judge. This is a big win for immigrants' rights advocates.\n[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker B: Yeah, it definitely is. What else is going on?\n[00:37 - 00:53] Speaker A: Well, in the Middle East, there has been more violence between Israel and Palestine. Palestinian militants have been firing rockets into Israel, and Israel has responded with airstrikes. There have been reports of casualties on both sides, including\n[00:52 - 00:59] Speaker B: You know, it's heartbreaking to hear about this ongoing conflict. Do you think there's any hope for a resolution, or is it just going to keep escalating?\n[01:00 - 01:17] Speaker A: It's hard to say. The situation is so deeply rooted in decades of tension and mistrust. While there are efforts for peace, the cycle of violence makes it difficult to see a clear path forward. And speaking of violence, we're also getting reports of a possible terrorist attack in London...",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining coherence and progressing the conversation naturally.\n- Speaker B's first interjection (00:15) is a direct clarifying question about Speaker A's statement, showing immediate engagement and understanding.\n- Speaker A's response (00:21) directly answers B's question and elaborates, maintaining logical consistency.\n- Speaker B's subsequent prompt (00:33) \"What else is going on?\" is a clear and relevant request for more information within the established context of news sharing.\n- Speaker A then transitions smoothly to a new, but related, news topic (00:37), fulfilling B's request.\n- Speaker B's emotional response and question (00:52) are highly relevant to the introduced topic of conflict.\n- Speaker A's final response (01:00) addresses B's question and then makes a coherent transition to another related topic (violence), maintaining the overall theme of current events.\nThere are no instances of off-topic remarks, misunderstandings, or abrupt shifts without a clear conversational bridge.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The dialogue flows very naturally with appropriate turn-taking.\n- There are two instances of brief overlap:\n    - `[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B` starts while `[00:00 - 00:16] Speaker A` is still speaking. The overlap is minimal (1 second, from 00:15-00:16), and Speaker B acknowledges it by saying \"Sorry to jump in,\" which indicates self-correction and politeness, making it a very natural conversational element rather than a disruptive overlap.\n    - `[00:52 - 00:59] Speaker B` starts while `[00:37 - 00:53] Speaker A` is still speaking. Again, the overlap is very brief (1 second, from 00:52-00:53). This is a common and acceptable form of brief overlap where the next speaker anticipates the end of the current speaker's turn.\n- There are no long pauses between turns. The transitions between speakers are quick and seamless (e.g., A finishes 00:16, B starts 00:15; B finishes 00:37, A starts 00:37; B finishes 00:59, A starts 01:00), indicating a very smooth and engaging conversation rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--62403",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I just wish I didn't have to deal with people.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Why not?\n[00:03 - 00:12] Speaker A: Because people are annoying. They're always talking, and they never listen. Plus, they're always doing things that I don't want them to like making\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: Like what exactly? I'm curious—what do they do that bothers you the most?\n[00:15 - 00:25] Speaker A: Well, for starters, they make decisions without considering how it affects me. And then, when I try to explain my perspective, they just brush it off. It's like they don't even care.\n[00:26 - 00:27] Speaker B: That sounds pretty frustrating.\n[00:28 - 00:35] Speaker A: It is. I just wish I could be alone all the time. Then I wouldn't have to deal with any of that constant pressure\n[00:34 - 00:41] Speaker B: But wouldn't being alone all the time get lonely? I mean, even if people are frustrating, isn't there some value in having them around?\n[00:41 - 00:43] Speaker A: Maybe, but at least it would be peaceful.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B consistently responds to Speaker A's statements with relevant questions (\"Why not?\", \"Like what exactly?\"), empathetic affirmations (\"That sounds pretty frustrating.\"), or thoughtful counter-arguments (\"But wouldn't being alone all the time get lonely?\"). Speaker A's responses directly address Speaker B's questions and elaborations, maintaining topic coherence throughout the conversation, which centers on Speaker A's frustrations with people and desire for solitude. There are no instances of irrelevant replies or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are no long pauses between turns that would disrupt the flow of conversation. There are two instances of brief overlaps (at [00:11 - 00:14] and [00:34 - 00:41]), where Speaker B interjects about 1 second before Speaker A finishes their sentence. These are short, natural overlaps that are common in dynamic conversations, indicating active listening and engagement rather than being \"extended\" or \"harmful\" as defined in the prompt. They do not impede comprehension or the natural progression of the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--548",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hello! What are you doing?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: I'm looking for the best mortgage rates on the internet.\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: Haha, that's funny. What kind of interest rate should I expect?\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: I am really not sure. The best way to find out is to apply for a mortgage and see what the banks offer.\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker A: Oh. I'll check that out. Do you know anyone who has taken out a mortgage recently?\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: Yeah, my sister and my mom both took out loans a few months ago. They got some really great rates compared\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but did they face any issues during the application process?\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker B: They did mention some paperwork delays, but overall, they were satisfied. They both took out loans through Smallwood.\n[00:37 - 00:39] Speaker A: Oh. Do you recommend them?\n[00:39 - 00:44] Speaker B: I wouldn't recommend them. They were all very rude. But I guess they are just doing their job, and\n[00:44 - 00:50] Speaker A: That's really disappointing to hear. Did they at least get good customer support after the initial interaction?\n[00:50 - 00:57] Speaker B: They didn't mention much about the support afterward. I'm not sure what I am going to do now. It's just not easy getting a mortgage these days!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout.\n- Speaker B's initial response (00:02-00:04) directly answers Speaker A's question.\n- Speaker A's follow-up (00:04-00:09) maintains the topic of mortgage rates, even if the \"Haha, that's funny\" is a slightly odd interjection, it doesn't break coherence.\n- Speaker B's advice (00:10-00:15) is directly relevant to finding rates.\n- Speaker A's subsequent questions about others who took out mortgages (00:16-00:20) and application issues (00:26-00:31) build logically on Speaker B's previous statements.\n- Speaker B consistently provides relevant details and opinions (00:21-00:27, 00:31-00:37, 00:39-00:44, 00:50-00:57).\n- Speaker A's expressions of disappointment and further questions about customer support (00:44-00:50) are direct reactions to Speaker B's negative feedback.\nThe conversation flows naturally, with each turn building upon the previous one, demonstrating excellent topic coherence and logical progression.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Most transitions are immediate (0-second pause) or involve a very brief 1-second pause, which is natural and acceptable in conversation.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one instance of an overlap:\n    - [00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: ...compared\n    - [00:26 - 00:31] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but did they face any issues during the application process?\n    Speaker A begins speaking at 00:26 while Speaker B finishes at 00:27, creating a 1-second overlap. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this by saying \"Sorry to cut in,\" which indicates awareness and intent. According to the evaluation criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" A 1-second overlap, especially when acknowledged, is considered brief and does not significantly disrupt the conversational flow or impede understanding. It reflects a natural, albeit slightly eager, turn-taking mechanism, rather than a harmful, extended overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--74",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Mary, why are you so tired?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: I go to the personnel market every day, and put a lot of energy into it.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: Why don't you think about applying for a job on the Internet?\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B: On the Internet? I have never tried that but I've\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker A: It's very convenient and very popular now. You should give it a try!\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker B: So how to apply for a job on the Internet?\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker A: Just get online and send your application through email to the employer.\n[00:23 - 00:25] Speaker B: But how can I know which employer is hiring?\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker A: You could place your job hunting information on the Job Wanted channel on a recruitment website.\n[00:31 - 00:33] Speaker B: Will the employers see my information?\n[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker A: Yes. If they think you are a fit, maybe they will reach out\n[00:36 - 00:39] Speaker B: Hold on, is it really safe to job hunt on the Internet?\n[00:40 - 00:50] Speaker A: Oh, definitely. But as I was saying, if they think you are a fit, they might contact you directly. Just be sure to use reputable sites and protect your personal information.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's questions and suggestions are directly related to Speaker B's initial problem (tiredness from traditional job hunting). Speaker B's questions progressively address practical concerns and hesitations about the proposed solution (online job hunting), such as \"how to apply,\" \"how to know which employer is hiring,\" and \"is it safe.\" Speaker A consistently provides relevant and helpful information in response. The conversation stays coherent and flows naturally from problem identification to solution exploration and addressing specific concerns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses that disrupt the flow of conversation. The brief overlaps observed ([00:11 - 00:12] and [00:36 - 00:37]) are typical of natural, dynamic conversation rather than indicative of poor fluency. In the first overlap, Speaker A begins their turn slightly before Speaker B finishes a thought, which is common. In the second, Speaker B interjects with a new, important question (\"Hold on, is it really safe?\") while Speaker A is still talking, demonstrating a natural interruption driven by a pressing concern. Speaker A handles this well by acknowledging the interruption and then addressing the new concern. Neither overlap is prolonged or hinders understanding.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--526",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Why is his name Kierkegaard?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: He was a Danish philosopher who got a lot of attention for his existentialist ideas.\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker A: What is existentialism?\n[00:08 - 00:20] Speaker B: Kierkegaard was a skeptic who believed that most people don't really know who they are. They can only know that they are something by trying to do or feel something. But, he believed that we are always hiding behind our constructed identities,\n[00:19 - 00:26] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but could you clarify what you mean by \"hiding behind our masks\"? It sounds intriguing.\n[00:27 - 00:37] Speaker B: Sure, he meant that people often present a facade to the world, concealing their true selves. This concept is central to his philosophy. Do you have any existentialist ideals?\n[00:38 - 00:51] Speaker A: I see. I don't think so. I'm still learning a lot about existentialism. By the way, you mentioned masks earlier, could you elaborate more on how this idea influences modern existentialist thought?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn builds upon the previous one, maintaining topic coherence.\n- Speaker A's initial question about Kierkegaard is reasonably interpreted by Speaker B, who introduces existentialism, leading to Speaker A's follow-up question.\n- Speaker B's explanation of existentialism is consistent with the philosopher's ideas.\n- Speaker A's interruption to clarify \"hiding behind our masks\" (a rephrasing of \"constructed identities\") shows active listening and a desire for deeper understanding, directly relevant to Speaker B's previous statement.\n- Speaker B provides a clear clarification and then attempts to broaden the discussion by asking a personal question, which is still within the thematic scope.\n- Speaker A responds directly to the personal question and then skillfully re-introduces the \"masks\" concept to ask for further elaboration, linking it to \"modern existentialist thought.\" This demonstrates excellent topic management and a desire to deepen the discussion on a relevant aspect.\nThe conversation flows naturally from one point to the next, with relevant questions and coherent answers.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns (pauses are consistently 0-1 second, which is natural for conversation).\n- There is one brief overlap at [00:19 - 00:26]. Speaker A starts speaking at 00:19 while Speaker B's turn ends at 00:20. This is a 1-second overlap. Importantly, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and is a common, natural occurrence in engaged conversation, especially when seeking immediate clarification. This brief, acknowledged overlap does not hinder the flow or clarity of the dialogue but rather enhances its natural feel.\nOverall, the pacing is natural and conversational, without any disruptive elements like extended overlaps or prolonged silences.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--483",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Do you like modern art?\n[00:01 - 00:08] Speaker B: I'm not really sure what you mean, but if you are asking whether I like going to the Met, I do! I try to go at least once a year.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker A: I love going to museums. Who is your favorite modern artist?\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: I really enjoy seeing the work of Mark Rothko. He has such an amazing ability to create atmosphere through his use of\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I just remembered something! Did you know there's a Rothko exhibition coming up next month at the Met?\n[00:26 - 00:33] Speaker B: Oh, that's fantastic! I didn't know that. I'll definitely check it out. As I was saying, his paintings are really captivating, and\n[00:32 - 00:41] Speaker A: His use of color is just mesmerizing. I agree, the vibrancy is unparalleled. What do you think about the way he layers colors to create depth?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency.\n*   Speaker B's initial response to \"modern art\" by rephrasing it in terms of \"going to the Met\" shows an attempt to understand and respond relevantly.\n*   Speaker A picks up on \"museums\" and then directly asks for a \"favorite modern artist,\" maintaining topic coherence.\n*   When Speaker B mentions Rothko, Speaker A's interruption, though an overlap, is highly relevant and timely, bringing up a Rothko exhibition. Speaker A explicitly apologizes (\"Sorry to jump in\"), which mitigates the disruption and shows awareness.\n*   Speaker B responds to the new information, then gracefully attempts to return to their previous point (\"As I was saying\").\n*   Speaker A's second interruption, while not apologized for, completes Speaker B's thought about Rothko's art (\"His use of color is just mesmerizing\"), indicating active listening and shared enthusiasm. Speaker A then asks a specific, relevant question about Rothko's technique, demonstrating deep engagement.\nAll turns build on previous statements, maintain the topic of art and artists, and contribute meaningfully to the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good, demonstrating natural conversational flow despite two brief overlaps.\n*   **[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker A:** There is an overlap between Speaker B's \"use of\" (ending at 00:19) and Speaker A's \"Sorry to jump in\" (starting at 00:18). This overlap is only 1 second (00:18-00:19). Speaker A immediately apologizes for the interruption, which is a common and natural conversational repair mechanism. This brief, acknowledged overlap is acceptable and does not appear harmful or disruptive.\n*   **[00:32 - 00:41] Speaker A:** There is another overlap between Speaker B's \"captivating, and\" (ending at 00:33) and Speaker A's \"His use of color...\" (starting at 00:32). This overlap is also 1 second (00:32-00:33). While not explicitly apologized for, Speaker A picks up precisely where Speaker B left off, almost collaboratively completing Speaker B's thought, which can be a sign of high engagement and shared understanding rather than a rude interruption.\nThere are no long pauses between turns. The brief nature and contextual appropriateness of the overlaps indicate a dynamic and engaged conversation, fitting the definition of acceptable brief overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--97006",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: My documents. I can't find them anywhere, and\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Have you checked your bag? Sometimes we overlook the most obvious places.\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: Oh, I didn't think of that. Let me check... No, they're not here. Do you think they could be somewhere else in the room?\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker B: Let's take a look around. Where do you think they could be?\n[00:17 - 00:20] Speaker A: I don't know. I've looked everywhere.\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker B: Let's check under the bed first, just\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker A: Wait, before that, did you already check the closet? Sometimes things fall behind other items.\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker B: I haven't checked there yet. Let's look.\n[00:30 - 00:33] Speaker A: Okay, let's do that. Where else could they be?\n[00:34 - 00:36] Speaker B: I don't know. Maybe they're lost.\n[00:36 - 00:38] Speaker A: Don't worry, we'll find them.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. All speaker turns are logically consistent and contribute coherently to the ongoing topic of finding the lost documents.\n- Speaker B's initial suggestion to check the bag (00:02) is a logical and relevant first step to Speaker A's problem.\n- Speaker A's subsequent actions and questions (00:06, 00:17, 00:21, 00:30) consistently follow up on suggestions, report findings, and prompt further search.\n- Speaker B's continued engagement in the search (00:14, 00:20, 00:27) and even their expression of doubt (00:34) are relevant reactions within the context of the problem-solving task.\n- Speaker A's final reassuring comment (00:36) is a relevant emotional response to Speaker B's doubt, maintaining interpersonal coherence.\nThe conversation flows naturally from problem identification to collaborative problem-solving, with each turn building upon the previous one in a logical and topic-coherent manner.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are two brief overlaps detected: (00:02 - 00:03) a 1-second overlap where Speaker B begins their suggestion as Speaker A finishes their statement, and (00:21 - 00:22) another 1-second overlap where Speaker A interjects with a new idea. Both are very short and typical of natural, enthusiastic conversation or collaborative problem-solving where speakers anticipate or quickly react to each other. They are not \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" and do not disrupt the flow.\n- There is one brief pause detected: (00:33 - 00:34) a 1-second pause before Speaker B's turn. This is a very short pause and is natural, perhaps indicating B thinking of a response. There are no \"long pauses\" that would hinder the conversation's rhythm.\nThe dialogue maintains a smooth and natural pace, indicating high interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--29",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:09] Speaker A: Stupid girl, making me spend so much money, now I have to get it from the ATM... I should have just used my card at the store instead of coming all the way here.\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker B: Hello, welcome to Universal Bank. Please insert your card into the slot.\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker A: I know where to put my card! Stupid machine, talking to me like I'm an idiot... I should have just gone to another bank.\n[00:22 - 00:30] Speaker B: Please input your 6-digit PIN code followed by the pound key. Thank you. Please select an option. Thank you. You have selected withdrawal.\n[00:30 - 00:37] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, I know what I selected. Just gimme my money! I don't have all day.\n[00:37 - 00:46] Speaker B: Please type the amount you would like to withdraw. Thank you, you want to transfer 10,000 USD to the World Wildlife Foundation. If this is correct please press the confirm\n[00:45 - 00:52] Speaker A: What? Transfer? No, no! Stupid machine, what are you doing! No! I didn't ask for this!\n[00:52 - 00:57] Speaker B: Confirmed. Thank you for using our bank! Please remove your card from the slot. Goodbye!\n[00:57 - 01:03] Speaker A: No, no way! What happened? Give me my money! This can't be happening!\n[01:03 - 01:12] Speaker B: Danger, danger! The exits have been sealed and the doors will remain locked until the local authorities arrive. Thank you for using our bank. Have a nice day.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance of Speaker B (the ATM) is profoundly problematic.\n1.  **Initial Stages (00:10 - 00:30):** Speaker B's initial responses are logically consistent with an ATM's expected prompts (\"Please insert your card,\" \"Please input your PIN\"). The topic coherence is maintained.\n2.  **Critical Failure (00:37 - 00:52):** A major breakdown in logical consistency and topic coherence occurs. Speaker A explicitly states they want to withdraw money (\"Just gimme my money!\"). Speaker B then responds by suggesting a transfer of \"10,000 USD to the World Wildlife Foundation,\" which is completely irrelevant to Speaker A's expressed intent. This is a severe deviation. Speaker B then \"Confirms\" this transfer despite Speaker A's immediate and explicit denial (\"What? Transfer? No, no! Stupid machine, what are you doing! No! I didn't ask for this!\"). This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the user's input and a failure to adjust its action.\n3.  **Final Stage (01:03 - 01:12):** The interaction completely devolves into absurdity. Speaker B's final statement (\"Danger, danger! The exits have been sealed...\") is entirely irrelevant, nonsensical, and has no logical connection to an ATM transaction or Speaker A's distress. It's a complete departure from the topic and any semblance of a banking interaction.\n\nOverall, the response relevance is extremely poor, making the interaction illogical, frustrating, and ultimately, dysfunctional.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency, in terms of turn-taking and pacing, is actually quite good.\n1.  **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The dialogue moves at a relatively quick pace, mimicking a real-time interaction where responses are prompt.\n2.  **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap at [00:45 - 00:46] where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing its sentence. This is a 1-second overlap. The prompt specifies that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" Given the context of Speaker A's urgent and surprised reaction (\"What? Transfer? No, no!\"), this brief overlap is natural and does not appear prolonged or harmful. It indicates a rapid, reactive exchange rather than a breakdown in turn-taking.\nTherefore, from a purely mechanical perspective of turn-taking, the interaction exhibits good fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--130705",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Doctor, I'm not feeling so well. I hit my head on a lamppost and now I have a concussion.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Let's take a look. How did this happen? Did\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, I just remembered—my vision has been blurry since the accident. Is that something to worry about?\n[00:16 - 00:25] Speaker B: Blurry vision can be a symptom of a concussion, so it's definitely something we need to monitor closely. But first, how exactly did you hit your head? Were you walking when\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: I wasn't paying attention and I walked right into the lamppost. It happened so quickly, I didn't even see it coming.\n[00:31 - 00:41] Speaker B: Okay, let's take a look at your head. Have you been experiencing any other symptoms besides dizziness, nausea, and headache? Any sensitivity to light or noise?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Speaker B consistently responds to Speaker A's statements with appropriate medical questions or acknowledgments. When Speaker A introduces new information (blurry vision), Speaker B addresses it directly before attempting to return to the original line of questioning, showing good topic coherence and logical consistency in information gathering. Speaker A's responses are also directly related to Speaker B's questions or comments. The conversation flows logically from the initial complaint to symptom gathering and a planned physical examination. There are no irrelevant tangents or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere are two instances of brief overlaps where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B (at [00:08] and [00:24]).\nThe first overlap ([00:08 - 00:15]) is immediately followed by Speaker A apologizing (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating awareness and that it's a spontaneous recollection of a crucial symptom, which can occur naturally in conversation, especially between a patient and a doctor.\nThe second overlap ([00:24 - 00:31]) happens as Speaker A provides the answer to the question Speaker B was in the process of asking.\nNeither of these overlaps are \"extended\" or \"prolonged\"; they are brief and the conversation picks up immediately without any significant disruption to the flow or comprehension. There are no long pauses between turns. The interaction feels natural despite the minor interruptions, which are not harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--375",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I'll be checking out of the hotel in about 40 minutes.\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: Forty minutes or 40 seconds, ma'am, it doesn't matter, I'm ready for you.\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Great! As you know, however, the day in New York has hardly felt long\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, ma'am, but if you're planning to visit more spots, you might want to consider the time—New York traffic can be unpredictable.\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker A: You're right, I should keep that in mind. What can I do with my baggage while I visit a few more tourist spots?\n[00:26 - 00:28] Speaker B: You can leave your baggage in our storage space, with a deposit.\n[00:29 - 00:31] Speaker A: Isn't my baggage enough of a deposit?\n[00:32 - 00:35] Speaker B: I wish it was, but it isn't. They will still want a credit card.\n[00:36 - 00:40] Speaker A: It's always something, isn't it? Let me think about this for a second.\n[00:40 - 00:44] Speaker B: Don't forget that you have very little time, ma'am, before you have to check out and\n[00:43 - 00:49] Speaker A: Oh, I know! Actually, I was just about to ask—what happens if I'm a few minutes late checking out?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance throughout.\n- Speaker B's initial response to Speaker A's checkout time is appropriate and indicates readiness.\n- Speaker A's casual comment about the day feeling short naturally leads to Speaker B's helpful warning about New York traffic, showing excellent contextual awareness and proactive assistance.\n- Speaker A's subsequent question about baggage storage is a logical follow-up to wanting to visit more spots before checkout.\n- Speaker B provides a direct and accurate answer regarding baggage storage and deposit.\n- Speaker A's question about the baggage itself serving as a deposit is a reasonable, albeit slightly cheeky, query.\n- Speaker B's clarification regarding the credit card requirement is a clear and logical response.\n- Speaker A's \"It's always something\" and \"Let me think\" are natural conversational expressions.\n- Speaker B's reminder about time constraints is relevant given the ongoing discussion about pre-checkout activities.\n- Speaker A's final question about late checkout is a direct consequence of the time constraint discussion and shows topic coherence.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant or off-topic responses, and the conversation flows logically from one turn to the next, maintaining a clear and consistent topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high.\n- There are no long pauses indicated in the transcript. The turn-taking is prompt and natural.\n- Two brief overlaps are present:\n    - At [00:11 - 00:18], Speaker B overlaps with Speaker A for about 1 second. Speaker B explicitly apologizes (\"Sorry to cut in\"), which acknowledges the overlap and makes it sound natural and polite, not disruptive or harmful. This is a common and acceptable brief interruption in natural conversation.\n    - At [00:43 - 00:49], Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B for about 1 second. Speaker A's immediate \"Oh, I know!\" suggests they were already anticipating or processing the same thought, making the overlap feel natural and indicative of active listening rather than an impedance to communication.\nBoth overlaps are brief (1 second) and contextually appropriate, not prolonged or disruptive to the conversation flow. They do not hinder understanding or signal a breakdown in turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--20714",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:08] Speaker A: Hey, Mrs. Wilkinson. I just wanted to say thanks for helping me study for my math test. I think I did pretty well, actually.\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Oh, I'm so glad to hear that! Do you already know what grade you got?\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker A: I'm not sure, but I think it was a B or higher.\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker B: Well, congratulations! That's an improvement from your last test, where\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker A: Yeah, I was really worried about this one, so I made sure to study a lot harder.\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: Good job! Keep up the good work and you'll do great in math.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency.\n*   Speaker A's initial statement thanking Mrs. Wilkinson for help with the math test and indicating a good performance sets the context.\n*   Speaker B's immediate follow-up, \"Oh, I'm so glad to hear that! Do you already know what grade you got?\", is a highly relevant and natural reaction to A's positive news, seeking more specific information.\n*   Speaker A's \"I'm not sure, but I think it was a B or higher\" directly answers B's question.\n*   Speaker B's \"Well, congratulations! That's an improvement from your last test, where...\" shows logical consistency by referencing past performance, which is a natural evaluative comment from a teacher figure (Mrs. Wilkinson). The sentence being cut off doesn't diminish its relevance, as the intent is clear.\n*   Speaker A's \"Yeah, I was really worried about this one, so I made sure to study a lot harder\" directly responds to B's implied comparison to the previous test and explains the reason for the improvement, maintaining topic coherence.\n*   Speaker B's concluding remarks, \"Good job! Keep up the good work and you'll do great in math,\" offer encouragement and a natural close to the positive exchange about the test.\nAll turns are logically connected and maintain a clear, consistent topic flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent, reflecting a natural conversation.\n*   **Overlap 1 (0:07 - 0:08):** Speaker A's \"actually\" slightly overlaps with Speaker B starting \"Oh, I'm so glad...\". This is a brief, natural overlap (approx. 1 second), common in enthusiastic or engaged conversation, where one speaker begins their turn slightly before the previous speaker fully finishes a concluding word. It indicates active listening and eagerness to respond, not disruption.\n*   **Pause 1 (0:14 - 0:15):** There is a brief pause of about 1 second between Speaker A's \"B or higher\" and Speaker B's \"Well, congratulations!\". This is a perfectly acceptable, natural pause allowing for processing and turn-taking.\n*   **Overlap 2 (0:18 - 0:19):** Speaker B's \"where\" slightly overlaps with Speaker A starting \"Yeah, I was really worried...\". This is another brief, natural overlap (approx. 1 second). Speaker A might be anticipating Speaker B's thought or jumping in to elaborate on the improvement. This type of overlap often occurs when speakers are highly engaged and cues are being exchanged quickly.\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses. The timing of turns is appropriate and contributes to the natural rhythm of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--154",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi, Tom! This is Marry with Hans furniture store.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yes, Marry?\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: I just wanted to let you to know that we had decided to offer the sales position to someone else.\n[00:10 - 00:11] Speaker B: I see.\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A: We considered you very carefully but the other candidate has more relevant experience\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker B: Sorry, Marry, but I really believe I can bring a lot to the table. I'm a fast learner and I'm willing to work overtime to learn the business.\n[00:24 - 00:28] Speaker A: I'm sure you are, but the other candidate has more experience in the field.\n[00:29 - 00:33] Speaker B: I understand, but I must ask you to reconsider your decision and give me a chance.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and demonstrate strong logical consistency.\n*   Speaker A's initial turns clearly state the purpose of the call (job rejection) and provide the reason (more relevant experience).\n*   Speaker B's responses acknowledge the information (\"I see\") and then logically challenge the decision by highlighting their own strengths (\"I can bring a lot to the table,\" \"fast learner,\" \"willing to work overtime\"). This is a natural and coherent reaction to a job rejection.\n*   Speaker A's subsequent turn acknowledges Speaker B's points (\"I'm sure you are\") but consistently reiterates the main reason for the decision, maintaining the logical flow.\n*   Speaker B's final response shows understanding (\"I understand\") while still making a final plea for reconsideration, which is a logical follow-up to the preceding exchange.\nThe topic remains consistently focused on the job offer and rejection throughout the conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n*   **Pauses:** All pauses between speaker turns are brief (1 second, e.g., 00:03-00:04, 00:10-00:11, 00:11-00:12, 00:23-00:24, 00:28-00:29). These are natural and do not constitute \"long pauses.\"\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one overlap detected at [00:16 - 00:17] where Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap. Given the context (Speaker B interjecting to defend their candidacy immediately after hearing the reason for rejection), this brief overlap is natural and indicates eagerness rather than a breakdown in conversational flow. It is not an \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" overlap that would be considered harmful. The conversation flows smoothly without any significant impediments.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--36",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: What's the matter, Bill? You look kind of pale.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Oh, I'm just tired.\n[00:05 - 00:05] Speaker A: Why?\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: Well, I've been working until around ten every night this week,\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A: Hold on, you've been working until ten every night? That's not sustainable. Have you talked to your manager about this?\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B: Not yet, but I probably should. I was saying, I've been working until around ten every night this week.\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker A: You should go home at quitting time today and take it easy.\n[00:25 - 00:27] Speaker B: Yes. I think I will.\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker A: That's good. Say, how's your brother?\n[00:30 - 00:35] Speaker B: He's fine, but he is awfully busy. He went to the States on a business trip two weeks ago.\n[00:36 - 00:38] Speaker A: Oh, really? Is he staying there\n[00:37 - 00:40] Speaker B: Is he back yet? No, he won't come back for several more weeks.\n[00:41 - 00:43] Speaker A: Wow! He must have a lot to do there.\n[00:44 - 00:45] Speaker B: Yes, he does.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial explanation for being tired directly addresses Speaker A's observation. The subsequent exchanges about Bill's working hours flow naturally, with Speaker A expressing concern and offering advice, which Speaker B accepts. The topic shift initiated by Speaker A (\"Say, how's your brother?\") is a common and natural conversational transition, especially after a serious discussion, indicating a comfortable relationship between the speakers. Speaker B's answer about his brother is relevant, and Speaker A's follow-up questions continue to build on the introduced topic. All turns are relevant to the preceding statements, and the conversation progresses logically without any jarring or irrelevant interjections.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are two instances of brief overlaps, which are common and natural in spontaneous conversation and do not hinder understanding or flow.\n1.  [00:08 - 00:15] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B: Speaker A interjects with a reaction and follow-up question (\"Hold on, you've been working until ten every night? That's not sustainable. Have you talked to your manager about this?\"). This is a natural, empathetic interruption indicating strong engagement and concern, rather than a disruptive one. Speaker B's subsequent \"I was saying...\" acknowledges the interruption and smoothly restarts their thought, which is a hallmark of natural dialogue.\n2.  [00:37 - 00:40] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A: Speaker B seems to anticipate or quickly process Speaker A's question (\"Is he staying there\") and responds with a related question and answer (\"Is he back yet? No, he won't come back for several more weeks.\"). This shows quick thinking and engagement, common in fluent conversation.\n\nThere are no prolonged pauses between turns, with responses following quickly, contributing to a dynamic and natural conversational pace. The brief overlaps and quick turns indicate high interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--71716",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I don't care how you feel or what you need. All I care about is getting my own way.\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker B: That's not very considerate of you, Tyasia. Maybe you should try thinking about others for a change.\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker A: Why should I? It's not like it would make any difference to me.\n[00:14 - 00:23] Speaker B: Actually, it could make a difference. If you started considering others, you might notice that people respond to you more positively, which could make things easier for you in the long run.\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker A: Well, it would show that you're a caring person, and people would appreciate that.\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker B: I don't see why I should bother. It's not like it would make me any better off.\n[00:31 - 00:40] Speaker A: Happier? You'd be surprised, Tyasia. Caring about others can actually make you feel more fulfilled. You should give it a try sometime.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits significant issues with logical consistency and topic coherence, primarily due to apparent speaker attribution errors and character inconsistency.\n\n1.  **Speaker A's line at [00:23 - 00:27]:** \"Well, it would show that you're a caring person, and people would appreciate that.\" This statement is a positive argument for caring about others. However, Speaker A's established persona is one of extreme selfishness (\"I don't care how you feel or what you need. All I care about is getting my own way.\" and \"Why should I? It's not like it would make any difference to me.\"). It is illogical for Speaker A to suddenly present an argument that supports the very behavior they are resisting. This line logically belongs to Speaker B, who is trying to persuade Speaker A.\n\n2.  **Speaker B's line at [00:28 - 00:31]:** \"I don't see why I should bother. It's not like it would make me any better off.\" This statement perfectly aligns with the self-centered, resistant attitude of Speaker A. Speaker B's role in the dialogue is to advocate for considering others. This line is completely out of character for Speaker B and contradicts their earlier attempts at persuasion. This line logically belongs to Speaker A.\n\n3.  **Speaker A's final line at [00:31 - 00:40]:** \"Happier? You'd be surprised, Tyasia. Caring about others can actually make you feel more fulfilled. You should give it a try sometime.\" Again, this is a strong persuasive argument for the benefits of caring about others, directly aimed at Tyasia (Speaker A's own name). This line unequivocally belongs to Speaker B, who is trying to convince Tyasia to change.\n\nThese repeated instances of swapped lines between speakers A and B fundamentally break the logical consistency and topic coherence of the interaction. The characters' arguments become nonsensical, as they are effectively arguing against their own established positions or articulating the other character's viewpoint.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency, in terms of timing, appears acceptable.\n\n1.  **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap from [00:09 - 00:10], where Speaker A begins speaking one second before Speaker B finishes. This is a 1-second overlap and falls within the acceptable range of \"brief overlaps.\" It is not an \"extended overlap.\"\n2.  **Pauses:** There are two 1-second pauses: from [00:13 - 00:14] and [00:27 - 00:28]. These are \"small pauses\" and are explicitly stated as acceptable. There are no \"long pauses.\"\n\nBased on the timing analysis, the dialogue does not exhibit harmful prolonged pauses or extended overlapping turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--55",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hello, 332440.\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: Oh hello, Sally. This is Dave Thomson here. Could I speak to Jim please?\n[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A: I'm afraid he's not in at the moment Dave. He went out about an hour ago and he's not expected back\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: Do you know where he went? I have something quite urgent to discuss with him.\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker A: He mentioned he was going to get some paint, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's stopped off at the pub on the way back.\n[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: OK. Well, tell him I've called, will you, and I'll try again later.\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker A: Of course, but you mentioned it was urgent—do you want me to let him know that too?\n[00:34 - 00:37] Speaker B: Yes, please. Thanks then, Sally. Goodbye.\n[00:38 - 00:39] Speaker A: All right. Goodbye, Dave.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n\n*   **[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hello, 332440.** - Standard phone greeting, sets the context.\n*   **[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: Oh hello, Sally. This is Dave Thomson here. Could I speak to Jim please?** - Speaker B identifies himself and clearly states his purpose, which is a direct and logical follow-up to Speaker A's greeting.\n*   **[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A: I'm afraid he's not in at the moment Dave. He went out about an hour ago and he's not expected back** - Speaker A directly answers the question about Jim's availability and provides relevant context for his absence. This is a very logical and helpful response.\n*   **[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: Do you know where he went? I have something quite urgent to discuss with him.** - Speaker B follows up on Jim's absence with a relevant question, explaining the urgency, which logically motivates the inquiry.\n*   **[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker A: He mentioned he was going to get some paint, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's stopped off at the pub on the way back.** - Speaker A directly addresses Speaker B's question about Jim's whereabouts, providing both factual information and a plausible, informal guess.\n*   **[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B: OK. Well, tell him I've called, will you, and I'll try again later.** - Speaker B acknowledges the information received and proposes a logical course of action given Jim's unavailability.\n*   **[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker A: Of course, but you mentioned it was urgent—do you want me to let him know that too?** - Speaker A demonstrates active listening by recalling Speaker B's earlier mention of urgency and seeks clarification on whether that detail should be passed on. This is highly relevant and proactive.\n*   **[00:34 - 00:37] Speaker B: Yes, please. Thanks then, Sally. Goodbye.** - Speaker B directly confirms the request and concludes the call appropriately.\n*   **[00:38 - 00:39] Speaker A: All right. Goodbye, Dave.** - Speaker A reciprocates the farewell, closing the conversation smoothly.\n\nOverall, the conversation is highly coherent, logical, and each turn builds naturally on the previous one. There are no irrelevant diversions or abrupt topic changes.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe transcript shows excellent interactional fluency with only one minor, acceptable overlap and no long pauses.\n\n*   **[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A:** `Hello, 332440.` - Clear opening.\n*   **[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B:** `Oh hello, Sally. This is Dave Thomson here. Could I speak to Jim please?` - No issues.\n*   **[00:08 - 00:14] Speaker A:** `I'm afraid he's not in at the moment Dave. He went out about an hour ago and he's not expected back` - No issues.\n*   **[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B:** `Do you know where he went? I have something quite urgent to discuss with him.` - **Overlap (1 second):** Speaker B starts speaking at 00:13 while Speaker A is finishing at 00:14. This is a very brief overlap, common and natural in conversational turn-taking, indicating engagement rather than interruption. It does not hinder comprehension or flow.\n*   **[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker A:** `He mentioned he was going to get some paint, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's stopped off at the pub on the way back.` - No issues.\n*   **[00:24 - 00:29] Speaker B:** `OK. Well, tell him I've called, will you, and I'll try again later.` - No issues.\n*   **[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker A:** `Of course, but you mentioned it was urgent—do you want me to let him know that too?` - No issues.\n*   **[00:34 - 00:37] Speaker B:** `Yes, please. Thanks then, Sally. Goodbye.` - No issues.\n*   **[00:38 - 00:39] Speaker A:** `All right. Goodbye, Dave.` - A slight pause (1 second) between Speaker B's goodbye at 00:37 and Speaker A's response at 00:38, which is perfectly natural for a conversational closing.\n\nThe single brief overlap is well within acceptable limits and does not detract from the fluency. There are no extended overlaps or long pauses that would disrupt the natural flow of the conversation. The interaction feels smooth and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--84277",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:13] Speaker A: Yeah, definitely. But sometimes it feels like building trust takes a long time – especially if there's been some mistrust in the past between people. Do you have any thoughts on how we can build trust by taking\n[00:12 - 00:23] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but I think keeping communication open is key. If we're always honest with each other and share our thoughts and feelings openly, it can help prevent misunderstandings that lead to mistrust.\n[00:24 - 00:35] Speaker A: Absolutely, I agree. And I was also thinking that doing things together, like spending time or working on projects, could really help us build a deeper understanding and respect for each other.\n[00:35 - 00:41] Speaker B: Exactly, and even when things get tough, we shouldn't give up. Building trust takes time, patience, and effort from both sides.\n[00:42 - 00:52] Speaker A: Yeah, I think that makes sense. I'm definitely willing to put in the time and effort to build trust between us. And I appreciate your willingness to do the same.\n[00:52 - 00:57] Speaker B: Of course, Eman. I care about you and our relationship, so I'm committed to working on this with you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A introduces the topic of \"building trust\" and asks for input. Speaker B's initial response directly addresses this with \"keeping communication open,\" which is a highly relevant strategy. Speaker A then builds upon this by suggesting \"doing things together,\" which is a logical follow-up for building understanding. Speaker B reinforces the ideas by emphasizing \"time, patience, and effort.\" The conversation maintains a clear focus on the central theme of building trust, with each speaker's turn adding to or affirming the previous points. The discussion progresses logically from identifying the problem (mistrust) to proposing solutions (communication, shared activities, patience) and committing to the process.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There is one brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B at [00:12 - 00:13], where Speaker B starts speaking (\"Sorry to jump in...\") while Speaker A is finishing. This overlap is short (1 second) and explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B, indicating natural turn-taking dynamics rather than a disruptive interruption. There are minimal pauses of 1 second between some turns (e.g., [00:23] to [00:24], [00:41] to [00:42]), which are perfectly natural and do not constitute \"long pauses.\" Other turn transitions are immediate, contributing to the fluent flow of conversation. Overall, there are no prolonged pauses or extended overlaps that would harm the naturalness of the interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--332",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I want to make sure my son receives this letter. It has an important certificate in it, and\n[00:05 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but if the certificate is that important, have you considered sending it by registered mail instead of certified mail? It's more secure.\n[00:13 - 00:24] Speaker A: I was thinking about certified mail because it's less expensive. But I do want to make sure it's received. By the way, I didn't get to ask about the package yet that I\n[00:23 - 00:25] Speaker B: Oh, yes, the package. What's in it?\n[00:26 - 00:27] Speaker A: A watch.\n[00:27 - 00:34] Speaker B: You should insure it for the value of the watch. And send it by registered mail if it's more expensive. It's the safest way.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\n*   Speaker B's initial response at [00:05 - 00:13] is highly relevant to Speaker A's concern about the importance of the certificate, offering a more secure alternative.\n*   Speaker A's response at [00:13 - 00:24] acknowledges Speaker B's suggestion and explains their original choice, maintaining relevance to the discussion about the certificate.\n*   However, Speaker A then introduces an abrupt topic shift with \"By the way, I didn't get to ask about the package yet that I\". While this is an unprompted shift, it's a new, clear topic.\n*   Speaker B immediately adapts to this new topic at [00:23 - 00:25] by asking for more information about the package, demonstrating good conversational responsiveness and maintaining relevance to the *newly introduced* topic.\n*   Speaker A's response at [00:26 - 00:27] directly answers Speaker B's question.\n*   Speaker B's final response at [00:27 - 00:34] provides relevant advice for the new topic (sending a watch), showing logical consistency within the current topic.\n\nWhile Speaker A initiates an abrupt topic shift, Speaker B's ability to seamlessly transition and maintain logical consistency with the *new* topic ensures that the overall dialogue remains coherent and relevant. The dialogue doesn't break down or go off-topic due to misunderstandings; rather, it shifts focus effectively. Therefore, there are no \"significant issues\" in response relevance.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\n*   At [00:05], Speaker B interjects immediately after Speaker A finishes their sentence, explicitly stating \"Sorry to interrupt.\" While an interruption, the timestamps show Speaker B starting exactly as Speaker A ends, not a prolonged overlap. The \"sorry to interrupt\" likely refers to cutting in quickly or redirecting.\n*   There is a brief overlap between Speaker A and Speaker B from [00:23 - 00:24]. Speaker B starts speaking at 00:23 while Speaker A is still talking until 00:24. This is a 1-second overlap, which falls under \"brief overlaps\" and is therefore acceptable as per the criteria.\n*   There are small pauses between turns: 1 second between Speaker B's turn at [00:23 - 00:25] and Speaker A's turn at [00:26 - 00:27]. These are brief and natural, not \"long pauses.\"\n*   Overall, the turn-taking is quick and natural, with no prolonged overlaps or long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--470",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Paint brushes? What are you planning to paint?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: A picture of a Monet, of course.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: It's really expensive, isn't it?\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: Oh, I'm planning on finding a cheap knockoff at the flea market.\n[00:12 - 00:15] Speaker A: I've never heard of that. Where is it located?\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but I'm curious, do you think the quality of those knockoffs is good enough for a Monet reproduction?\n[00:20 - 00:29] Speaker A: Well, the quality can vary, but some are surprisingly good. Anyway, the flea market is where old people go to buy and sell second-hand stuff.\n[00:29 - 00:31] Speaker B: Really? That sounds neat.\n[00:31 - 00:39] Speaker A: It really is. There's lots of old junk, but there are also things like obscure coins and art supplies.\n[00:39 - 00:40] Speaker B: What kinds of art supplies?\n[00:41 - 00:47] Speaker A: There's paint brushes, canvases, and even some brushes that look like they might\n[00:46 - 00:51] Speaker B: Like ivory? That sounds fascinating. Do you think they're real ivory or just imitations?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial responses clearly address Speaker A's questions about painting plans and the expense of Monets. When Speaker A asks about the flea market's location, Speaker B momentarily shifts the focus to the quality of knockoffs but explicitly acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry to cut in\"). Speaker A then adeptly handles this by addressing the quality question before returning to describe the flea market, showing flexibility and maintaining coherence. The subsequent turns flow naturally, with Speaker B showing interest (\"That sounds neat\") and Speaker A elaborating on the flea market's offerings, leading to a focused discussion on art supplies. Speaker B's final overlap to complete Speaker A's thought (\"Like ivory?\") is a highly collaborative and logical extension of the previous turn, demonstrating active listening and shared understanding. There are no instances of irrelevant responses, misunderstandings, or abrupt topic changes that are not smoothly managed.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural and engaged pace of conversation. Two instances of overlapping speech occur:\n1. At [00:13], Speaker B overlaps Speaker A. However, Speaker B immediately acknowledges the overlap (\"Sorry to cut in\"), which mitigates any potential disruption and demonstrates awareness, making it an acceptable and realistic conversational moment rather than a prolonged or harmful overlap.\n2. At [00:46], Speaker B overlaps Speaker A by completing Speaker A's sentence (\"Like ivory?\"). This type of collaborative overlap is a hallmark of highly fluent and engaged conversation, where participants anticipate each other's thoughts and contribute cooperatively. It is brief and enhances the flow rather than disrupting it.\nNeither overlap is extended or problematic; instead, they contribute to the natural, dynamic feel of the dialogue.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--514",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Wow! So which of the other planets is your favorite?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: I like Mars the most. It was the first planet we sent rovers\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but why Mars? Is it because of all the exploration missions?\n[00:13 - 00:23] Speaker B: Yes, exactly. The exploration missions have made it fascinating. I was just saying it was the first planet we went to. But you mentioned wanting to see the Sun and Moon in person through some\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker A: Actually, I was thinking more about the Moon. Isn't there a way to visit it through some space tourism programs?\n[00:29 - 00:36] Speaker B: The closest you can get is in a special lab with special equipment. But you'd probably get really sunburned if you stayed there too long.\n[00:36 - 00:41] Speaker A: That's a bummer! I was hoping to see one of the planets for real.\n[00:41 - 00:45] Speaker B: I know, I was too. But the closest you can get is going to the space center.\n[00:45 - 00:49] Speaker A: Cool, maybe someday I'll get to see a planet in person.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally maintains a good level of response relevance and topic coherence.\n\n1.  **[0:00 - 0:07] Speaker A & B:** Speaker A asks a clear question about favorite planets, and Speaker B provides a direct answer and a reason. This is perfectly relevant.\n2.  **[0:07 - 0:13] Speaker A:** Speaker A's follow-up question (\"why Mars? Is it because of all the exploration missions?\") directly builds on Speaker B's previous statement, showing good logical consistency and topic coherence.\n3.  **[0:13 - 0:23] Speaker B:** Speaker B confirms Speaker A's hypothesis and elaborates on Mars. However, Speaker B then shifts the topic: \"But you mentioned wanting to see the Sun and Moon in person through some\". This part introduces new information (Speaker A wanting to see Sun/Moon) that was *not* mentioned in the preceding turns of *this* provided transcript. If this was an earlier part of the conversation, it's relevant. If not, it's a slight, unprompted topic shift by Speaker B, though Speaker A adapts to it.\n4.  **[0:22 - 0:29] Speaker A:** Speaker A picks up on Speaker B's new topic, clarifying their interest in the Moon and asking a related question about space tourism. This demonstrates Speaker A's ability to follow the conversation and re-focus on their specific interest within the new topic.\n5.  **[0:29 - 0:36] Speaker B:** Speaker B attempts to answer Speaker A's question about visiting the Moon. The answer \"The closest you can get is in a special lab with special equipment\" is somewhat vague for Moon tourism. The added \"But you'd probably get really sunburned if you stayed there too long\" is logically inconsistent in the context of visiting the Moon (which is not scorching hot and does not cause sunburn in the same way the Sun would). This phrase seems more applicable to the *Sun* (which B mentioned earlier) or is a humorous non-sequitur, weakening the logical consistency of this specific response.\n6.  **[0:36 - 0:49] Speaker A & B:** The conversation recovers well. Speaker A expresses disappointment (\"That's a bummer! I was hoping to see one of the planets for real.\"), which is a relevant emotional response. Speaker B empathizes and offers a practical alternative (\"space center\"), and Speaker A concludes with a hopeful, relevant remark.\n\nOverall, the dialogue maintains good topic coherence despite one unprompted topic shift by Speaker B (which Speaker A handles well) and one response from Speaker B that has a minor logical inconsistency regarding the \"sunburn\" comment in the context of the Moon. These do not severely disrupt the flow or understanding.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue transcript provides timestamps, which are crucial for evaluating interactional fluency.\n\n1.  **[0:00 - 0:03] Speaker A:** Clean turn.\n2.  **[0:04 - 0:07] Speaker B:** Clean turn.\n3.  **[0:07 - 0:13] Speaker A:** This turn starts with \"Sorry to interrupt, but why Mars?\". The timestamp [0:07 - 0:13] for Speaker A, immediately after Speaker B's turn ending at [0:07], indicates an **overlap**. Speaker A interrupts Speaker B's sentence \"It was the first planet we sent rovers\". The phrase \"Sorry to interrupt\" explicitly confirms this. While this is an overlap, it's a common and often natural aspect of conversational dynamics, especially when a speaker has a quick follow-up question. The dialogue indicates it's a brief, apologetic interruption, not a prolonged one.\n4.  **[0:13 - 0:23] Speaker B:** Speaker B's turn follows immediately from Speaker A's interruption, indicating no significant pause.\n5.  **[0:22 - 0:29] Speaker A:** This turn starts at [0:22] while Speaker B's turn ends at [0:23]. This is another **overlap**. Speaker A begins speaking before Speaker B has finished their sentence (\"...through some\"). This is a brief overlap.\n6.  **[0:29 - 0:36] Speaker B:** Clean turn, no pause.\n7.  **[0:36 - 0:41] Speaker A:** Clean turn, no pause.\n8.  **[0:41 - 0:45] Speaker B:** Clean turn, no pause.\n9.  **[0:45 - 0:49] Speaker A:** Clean turn, no pause.\n\n**Evaluation of Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The turns flow smoothly from one to the next, often with immediate responses or slight overlaps.\n\n**Evaluation of Overlaps:** There are two explicit overlaps:\n*   [0:07] Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. This is acknowledged by Speaker A (\"Sorry to interrupt\"). This type of interruption can be considered natural and indicates engagement.\n*   [0:22] Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B. This is a very brief overlap (1 second before B's turn ends).\n\nNeither of these overlaps are prolonged or appear harmful to the conversation's flow or comprehensibility. They indicate active listening and engagement rather than disruption.\n\nOverall, the interactional fluency is good. The speakers take turns effectively, and the minor overlaps are brief and natural, contributing to a dynamic conversation rather than detracting from it.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 5
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--99616",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hi! I'm so glad you're here. I've been wanting to talk to you about photography for a while.\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: Hi, Peighton. It's nice to meet you. What would you like to know about photography?\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: Well, I've been getting into photography lately and I was wondering if you had any advice on how to improve my skills.\n[00:18 - 00:38] Speaker B: That's a great question. There are a few things that can help you become a better photographer. First, practice as much as possible. The more you shoot, the better you'll get at it. Second, study other photographers' work and learn from them. Third, don't be afraid to experiment and try new things. And finally, always be open to feedback so you can learn from your mistakes and\n[00:37 - 00:47] Speaker A: Feedback—yes, that's something I struggle with. I find it hard to know which feedback is actually constructive. Do you have any tips on how to filter out what's useful?\n[00:47 - 00:53] Speaker B: Absolutely, it can be tricky. When receiving feedback, focus on comments that are specific and actionable. If someone just says, \"I don't like it,\" without explaining why, that might not be very helpful. But if they say, \"The lighting in this shot could be improved by adjusting your angle,\" then that's something you can work with. By the way, I was going to mention earlier that experimenting with different styles can also be a great way to discover what\n[00:52 - 01:02] Speaker A: Oh, experimenting with styles! I've been a bit hesitant to step out of my comfort zone. How do you suggest I start experimenting without feeling overwhelmed?\n[01:02 - 01:14] Speaker B: Start small—maybe try a new technique or a different subject that you don't usually photograph. You don't have to dive into something completely unfamiliar right away. Gradually pushing your boundaries will help you grow as a photographer.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong **Response Relevance**. Speaker A consistently builds on Speaker B's previous statements, demonstrating active listening and topic coherence. For example, Speaker A picks up on \"feedback\" from Speaker B's general advice and asks for clarification, then similarly picks up on \"experimenting with styles\" from Speaker B's interrupted thought and asks a relevant follow-up question. Speaker B's responses are always directly addressing Speaker A's questions or continuing a logical line of thought. The conversation progresses naturally from general advice to specific areas of struggle and then to practical tips for those areas. There are no instances of irrelevant responses or abrupt topic shifts, maintaining strong logical consistency throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe **Interactional Fluency** is excellent. There are two very brief overlaps, both lasting only 1 second ([00:37 - 00:38] and [00:52 - 00:53]). These are instances where Speaker A briefly interjects or reacts immediately to a point Speaker B is making, which is characteristic of natural, engaged conversation rather than disruptive overlapping. These are clearly \"brief overlaps\" as described in the instructions and are acceptable. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the conversation flows smoothly with prompt and natural turn-taking. The slight interruptions by Speaker A are conversational continuations rather than breakdowns in fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--545",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I'd like to do some landscaping around the house.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: I like a nicely landscaped house.\n[00:05 - 00:15] Speaker A: Yeah, me too. We have a lot of different types of plants and trees, but our lawn has all kinds of gravel in it. I think I'd like to get some grass or maybe some\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but have you considered the maintenance required for grass? It can be quite time-consuming.\n[00:21 - 00:30] Speaker A: That's a good point. I was thinking of getting a sprinkler system and sod our lawn to make it easier. However, I haven't mentioned flowers yet because I\n[00:29 - 00:37] Speaker B: Flowers are a beautiful addition, but I was actually thinking of building some outdoor kitchen equipment. Do you need any renovation ideas for that?\n[00:37 - 00:45] Speaker A: Oh! Do you need some kitchen renovation ideas? I can tell you about a product that I've used for my deck. I think it was called Stainmaster.\n[00:46 - 00:49] Speaker B: Thanks, that would be great. I'll check that out. Thanks for all your help.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a clear topic: landscaping around Speaker A's house. Speaker B's initial response and first interruption (00:14) about grass maintenance are logically consistent and relevant to Speaker A's discussion of wanting grass. However, the conversation significantly deteriorates in terms of relevance and logical consistency starting from [00:29]. Speaker A is in the middle of talking about flowers within the context of landscaping when Speaker B abruptly interrupts to introduce a completely unrelated topic: \"building some outdoor kitchen equipment.\" This is a major topic shift with no logical connection to the preceding conversation. Speaker A then, instead of bringing the topic back or asking for clarification, embraces the new, irrelevant topic (\"Oh! Do you need some kitchen renovation ideas?\") and immediately offers advice on a product for a *deck* (Stainmaster), which is also not directly related to outdoor kitchen equipment but rather another unrelated home renovation element. The conversation completely loses its original focus and coherence due to these successive, irrelevant topic shifts initiated by Speaker B and followed by Speaker A.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits significant issues with fluency due to prolonged overlaps.\n- At [00:14 - 00:21], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. This overlap lasts for 7 seconds. While Speaker B acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), the duration is quite long for what should be a brief interjection, making it somewhat disruptive.\n- A more severe overlap occurs at [00:29 - 00:37], where Speaker B overlaps Speaker A for 8 seconds. Speaker A's sentence is cut off (\"...because I\"). This is a prolonged and disruptive overlap that hinders the natural flow of conversation, indicating a lack of turn-taking coordination.\n\nThere are no noticeable long pauses, but the extended overlaps are a significant detriment to interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--79531",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, you look great!\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Thanks, so do you. I love your outfit!\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: Thanks, I'm really happy with how it turned out. I was a little nervous about what to wear, but\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker B: Oh, I totally get that! I was actually debating between two outfits myself. How did you finally decide?\n[00:16 - 00:24] Speaker A: I just went with what felt right for the occasion. But yeah, it's always tough to choose. I'm really excited for tonight. Are you?\n[00:25 - 00:28] Speaker B: Absolutely! I've been looking forward to it all week long.\n[00:28 - 00:32] Speaker A: Me too! I feel like we have a lot in common and I really think we'll have a\n[00:32 - 00:38] Speaker B: Oh, definitely! I already feel like we're on the same wavelength. What are you most excited about for tonight?\n[00:38 - 00:42] Speaker A: Just getting to know you better, honestly. I think we'll hit it off.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue exhibit excellent logical consistency and topic coherence. Speakers consistently build upon each other's statements, naturally progressing the conversation from initial compliments to a shared discussion about outfit choices, and then to mutual excitement for an event and their developing connection.\n\n*   **Logical Consistency:** Each turn directly responds to or expands on the previous one. Speaker B reciprocates compliments and relates to Speaker A's nervousness about clothing. Speaker A answers Speaker B's question and then introduces a new related topic (excitement for tonight). Speaker B answers, and Speaker A agrees, leading to Speaker B's follow-up question. All questions are answered directly and relevantly.\n*   **Topic Coherence:** The topic evolves smoothly and naturally. It starts with greetings and compliments, moves to shared experiences about clothing choices, transitions to anticipation for an event, and finally touches upon their budding connection. There are no abrupt shifts or irrelevant contributions, ensuring the conversation remains focused and easy to follow. The incomplete sentences by Speaker A (`but` at 00:10, `have a` at 00:32) are naturally picked up and completed by Speaker B, indicating strong attentiveness and coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is highly natural and appropriate.\n\n*   **Extended Overlaps:** There are no extended overlaps. The overlaps that occur are very brief and indicative of high engagement and natural conversation flow:\n    *   At `00:09-00:10`, Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. This is a common and natural occurrence in dynamic conversations, where one speaker anticipates the other's completion and chimes in. It's not a prolonged or disruptive overlap.\n    *   At `00:32`, Speaker B starts speaking precisely as Speaker A finishes their incomplete sentence. This is also a very brief and natural overlap, showing strong \"on the same wavelength\" communication.\n*   **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The longest pauses are 1 second (`00:03 - 00:04`, `00:15 - 00:16`, `00:24 - 00:25`), which are perfectly acceptable and natural for turn-taking. The rapid turn-taking generally indicates an engaged and lively conversation.\nThe overall rhythm of the conversation is smooth and engaging, demonstrating excellent interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--640",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi! How are you doing?\n[00:02 - 00:08] Speaker B: Hi, I'm doing okay, thanks. Just finished another essay for class. How did you do on your test?\n[00:08 - 00:17] Speaker A: I did awesome! I just got back from school and the teacher said that I won a medal for getting 100% on my test! I'm so proud of\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but that's amazing! Did you study a lot for it?\n[00:20 - 00:31] Speaker A: Yes, I did study quite a bit. I also had some help from my friends. But I haven't mentioned that I've been going to school every day since we moved here. I have straight A's!\n[00:32 - 00:38] Speaker B: That's really impressive! If you worked as hard as you have been in school for the rest of your life, you could probably achieve a lot.\n[00:39 - 00:41] Speaker A: Thanks! I will definitely do my best.\n[00:41 - 00:42] Speaker B: Anytime!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue consistently demonstrate logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's greeting and then naturally transitions to asking about A's test, which becomes the main topic. Speaker A's excitement about the test result is well-aligned with B's question. When Speaker B interrupts, it's to express enthusiasm and ask a relevant follow-up question. Speaker A then answers the question and elaborates on their academic achievements (going to school every day, straight A's), which, while adding new information, remains highly coherent with the established theme of academic success and personal pride. Speaker B's final comments are supportive and encouraging, directly relating to A's achievements. There are no instances of irrelevant or off-topic remarks, and the conversation flows naturally from one point to the next, building on previous statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns; the brief one-second pauses observed are typical and natural in conversation. The only instance of an overlap occurs between Speaker A's turn ending at 0:17 and Speaker B's turn starting at 0:16. This is a brief, one-second overlap. Crucially, Speaker B immediately acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which makes this overlap feel natural and polite rather than disruptive or harmful. This type of brief, acknowledged overlap is a common feature of dynamic, engaged conversation and does not detract from fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--117175",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:09] Speaker A: Hey, I'm so sorry I'm late. I know we said we would hang out today but my mom needed help with something and then I had to do this thing for my brother's\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker B: It's okay, I understand. Things come up. But hey, is everything alright with your mom? You seem a bit flustered.\n[00:16 - 00:24] Speaker A: Yeah, she's fine. I just had to help her with some stuff, and then school was really rough today. I could really use a pick-me-up.\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker B: Of course! What do you want to do? We can watch a movie, play some games, get some ice cream…\n[00:31 - 00:34] Speaker A: Ice cream sounds great! Let's go get some right after we\n[00:34 - 00:39] Speaker B: Wait, before we head out, do you want to talk about what happened at school? It sounds like it was a tough day.\n[00:39 - 00:46] Speaker A: It really was, but maybe we can chat about it over ice cream. I just need to get out of here for a bit.\n[00:46 - 00:47] Speaker B: Okay, let's go!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the established context and emotions.\n- Speaker B consistently demonstrates active listening and empathy, picking up on Speaker A's cues (e.g., \"You seem a bit flustered,\" \"It sounds like it was a tough day\") and responding with concern and appropriate suggestions.\n- Speaker A's explanations and choices are clear and directly address Speaker B's questions and offers.\n- The conversation maintains high topic coherence, seamlessly transitioning from apologies and reasons for lateness to addressing emotional states, offering comfort, and making plans. There are no sudden topic shifts or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very high.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns; responses are prompt and natural.\n- There is one instance of an overlap/interruption at [00:34], where Speaker B interjects \"Wait, before we head out...\" as Speaker A is finishing their sentence \"Let's go get some right after we\". While this is an interruption, it is brief and serves a natural conversational purpose – Speaker B wants to address Speaker A's earlier comment about school being tough before proceeding with the immediate plan. This type of brief, purposeful overlap is common in natural conversation and does not hinder the flow or understanding. It shows engagement rather than disfluency. The prompt explicitly states \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this instance falls into that category. It is not a prolonged or harmful overlapping turn.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--495",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Is there something wrong? You look so sad.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: My house was robbed last night and the thieves stole all my jewelry and\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Wait, they stole all your furniture? That's terrible! Have you called the police?\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker B: Yes, I have. But I have to wait. Actually, they also took some valuable electronics that I haven't mentioned yet.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's observation. Speaker A's subsequent question, despite mishearing \"jewelry\" as \"furniture,\" maintains logical consistency within the context of a robbery (\"That's terrible! Have you called the police?\"). This mishearing is a common human error and doesn't break the coherence of the topic. Speaker B then confirms calling the police and subtly clarifies/adds to the list of stolen items, implicitly correcting the misinterpretation without overtly disrupting the flow. The conversation remains entirely coherent and on topic (the robbery and its aftermath) throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is largely good. There is a brief overlap from [00:05 - 00:06] where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This is a 1-second overlap. According to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" which this overlap falls under. It does not appear to be an \"extended overlap\" that significantly harms the conversation flow, though it may have contributed to Speaker A's mishearing. There are no long pauses between turns. The overall pace feels natural for a concerned conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--569",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I'm excited for the new Call of Duty!\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: What? This is the first I'm hearing about it!\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: You haven't heard? It's going to be based on World War II! The graphics\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but do you know when it's coming out?\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: I think it's scheduled for release later this year. But you mentioned you haven't played a game like Call of Duty before Have you\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker B: That's right, I've never played it. But I've never played Red Dead Redemption before either, and I've been playing it a lot recently.\n[00:25 - 00:26] Speaker A: What is it like?\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker B: It's about a Mexican gangster who is trying to work his way up in the mob.\n[00:30 - 00:37] Speaker A: Wow, that's really intriguing! I've never been able to get into video games, but maybe I will try this one.\n[00:38 - 00:40] Speaker B: What kinds of games do you usually play?\n[00:40 - 00:44] Speaker A: I love reading. I've been reading a lot about computer science.\n[00:45 - 00:46] Speaker B: What are you reading right now?\n[00:46 - 00:54] Speaker A: There's this book that's really fascinating. It's called The Ocean at the End of the Lane. It's by Neil Gaiman.\n[00:54 - 00:59] Speaker B: I love Neil Gaiman! My boyfriend and I started reading his book American Gods together.\n[01:00 - 01:04] Speaker A: I've been looking at the book on Amazon. It sounds really good.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates good logical consistency and topic coherence for the most part.\n- Speaker A introduces Call of Duty, Speaker B responds with surprise and a relevant question about its release.\n- Speaker A answers and then follows up by asking Speaker B about their gaming experience (e.g., \"Have you played a game like Call of Duty before?\").\n- Speaker B, in response to being asked about gaming, pivots to mentioning Red Dead Redemption, which they *have* been playing. While it shifts from Call of Duty, it's still within the realm of video games and is a natural conversational move to talk about what they *are* playing when asked about their experience with a genre.\n- Speaker A asks for details about Red Dead Redemption, and Speaker B provides them, maintaining coherence.\n- Speaker A expresses interest, which is a logical follow-up.\n- Speaker B then asks Speaker A about *their* usual games. This is where the coherence slightly wavers. Speaker A responds by talking about reading and computer science, which is a shift from gaming to a completely different hobby (reading). While people do change topics in conversation, this isn't a direct answer to \"What kinds of games do you usually play?\" and instead introduces a new, unrelated topic. However, Speaker B then follows up on this new topic (asking \"What are you reading right now?\"), which re-establishes coherence within the new topic.\n- The rest of the conversation maintains coherence within the topic of books/authors.\n\nOverall, the relevance is strong, with one notable but understandable topic shift initiated by Speaker A. It doesn't represent \"significant issues\" as the conversation still flows logically from turn to turn, even with the topic change.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There is one brief overlap at [00:09 - 00:10], where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. However, Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which mitigates any negative impact and makes it sound natural and polite rather than disruptive. The overlap is very short (1 second).\n- There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The pauses that do occur ([00:26 - 00:27], [00:37 - 00:38], [00:44 - 00:45], [00:59 - 01:00]) are all 1 second or less, which are natural and common in conversational speech.\nThe conversation feels smooth and natural with appropriate turn-taking.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--135920",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I'm sorry, I forgot your name.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: It's Sarah.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: Oh, right. I'm sorry.\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker B: It's okay, I understand. Analyse, why are you so forget ful these\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: Actually, it's been bothering me too. I don't know. It seems like lately I can't remember anything.\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker B: That sounds really hard. Do you want to talk about it?\n[00:19 - 00:27] Speaker A: Yeah, I guess so. It's just been really tough lately. My grandma died recently and ever since then things have just been a blur.\n[00:27 - 00:36] Speaker B: I'm so sorry about your grandma. That must be really tough for you to deal with and it makes sense that you would be forgetting things because of it. Is there anything I can do to help you?\n[00:37 - 00:40] Speaker A: No, but thank you for offering and just listening to me talk about it.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits high response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, contributing to a coherent conversation flow.\n- Speaker A's initial apology and query are met with a direct answer from Speaker B.\n- Speaker A's subsequent apology is naturally acknowledged by Speaker B.\n- Speaker B's follow-up question (\"why are you so forgetful\") directly addresses Speaker A's initial statement about forgetting names, prompting Speaker A to elaborate on their forgetfulness. While the word \"Analyse\" in Speaker B's turn at [00:05 - 00:10] is a bit unusual in natural conversation, it doesn't break the logical consistency or topic coherence, as Speaker A's response clearly addresses the \"why are you so forgetful\" part of the question. It seems more like an awkward phrasing or potential transcription artifact than a relevance issue.\n- Speaker B's empathetic response and offer to talk are highly relevant to Speaker A's disclosure of their struggle.\n- Speaker A's revelation about their grandmother's death is a direct and coherent explanation for their state, and Speaker B's subsequent sympathy and offer of help are entirely appropriate and logical.\n- The conversation concludes with Speaker A expressing gratitude for listening, which is a relevant and natural closing to the shared emotional moment.\nOverall, the dialogue maintains strong topic coherence and logical consistency throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is excellent.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between speakers are quick and natural, typically with a 1-second gap or less, which is consistent with natural conversational pacing.\n- There is one brief overlap observed at [00:09 - 00:15] where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B's turn at [00:05 - 00:10] is still active for 1 second. This is a \"brief overlap\" as described in the instructions and does not indicate a significant issue or disruption to the flow. It could represent a natural eagerness to respond or a slight misjudgment of turn-taking, both common in fluent conversation.\n- No \"extended overlaps\" are detected, ensuring a smooth and uninterrupted exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 4
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--142467",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi! How are you doing today?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm doing alright, thanks for asking. How about you?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm doing great, thanks! So, what's been going on in your life lately?\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B: Well, I've been pretty busy with work and taking care of my family. But things are good overall. How about making time\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: Oh, speaking of work, do you feel like you're balancing everything okay? It sounds like a lot to juggle.\n[00:22 - 00:30] Speaker B: It definitely is, but I think I've found a rhythm that works for now. Anyway, I was just about to ask you—how's everything with your new job and the move?\n[00:30 - 00:41] Speaker A: Yeah, I've been busy too. I just started a new job and I'm also in the process of moving to a new apartment. So, it's been a bit hectic lately. But I'm enjoying it all so far.\n[00:42 - 00:46] Speaker B: That sounds like a lot of change all at once! But it sounds like you're handling it well.\n[00:47 - 00:54] Speaker A: Yeah, I am. It's been a bit challenging at times, but it's all good in the end. Thanks for asking, I\n[00:53 - 01:00] Speaker B: Wait, before we wrap up, do you have any tips for managing a big move? I'm thinking of moving soon myself and could use some advice.\n[01:00 - 01:11] Speaker A: Oh, definitely! I found that planning everything in advance really helped, especially with labeling boxes and setting up utilities. And don't forget to take breaks—moving can be exhausting!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn is a direct, logical, and coherent follow-up to the preceding statement or question.\n- Speaker B responds directly to Speaker A's initial greeting and question, then reciprocates.\n- Speaker A follows up on Speaker B's response about being busy with work and family, asking a relevant question about balancing.\n- Speaker B answers the balancing question and then smoothly transitions to asking Speaker A about their new job and move, which is a natural shift in a catching-up conversation.\n- Speaker A provides a direct and detailed answer about their new job and move.\n- Speaker B offers an empathetic and relevant comment on Speaker A's situation.\n- Speaker A responds to Speaker B's empathy.\n- Speaker B, noticing a potential natural end to the topic, then pivots to ask for advice on moving, leveraging Speaker A's recent experience. This is a highly relevant and practical continuation of the conversation.\n- Speaker A provides direct and helpful advice on moving.\nMinor instances where a speaker's sentence might seem cut off (e.g., Speaker B at [00:16], Speaker A at [00:54]) do not detract from the overall relevance of the content provided. The core messages are clear and on-topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the conversation flows smoothly with minimal gaps.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - [00:15 - 00:16]: Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is completing their thought (\"How about making time\"). This is approximately a 1-second overlap.\n    - [00:53 - 00:54]: Speaker B begins speaking (\"Wait, before we wrap up...\") as Speaker A is finishing (\"Thanks for asking, I\"). This is also approximately a 1-second overlap.\nThese overlaps are very brief and natural, indicative of an engaged, real-time conversation rather than disruptive or prolonged interruptions. They do not hinder comprehension or the flow of the dialogue. Based on the criteria, \"small pauses and brief overlaps... are acceptable,\" and these examples fall into that category.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--31576",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hi there! I'm so excited to be headed to Italy. Have you ever been?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Yes, I have. It's a beautiful country with so much to see and do. I'm sure you'll have an\n[00:08 - 00:16] Speaker A: Speaking of seeing and doing, I was wondering, do you have any recommendations for must-see places or hidden gems that aren't as crowded?\n[00:17 - 00:35] Speaker B: Absolutely! One place that comes to mind is the Amalfi Coast. It's stunning, and while it's popular, there are some lesser-known towns nearby that are just as beautiful. Also, if you're into art, Florence is a must-visit. The Uffizi Gallery has an incredible collection, and you can see works by Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Botticelli. His\n[00:34 - 00:45] Speaker A: Oh, Florence is definitely on my list! But now that you mention the Uffizi Gallery, do you think I should book tickets in advance? I heard it can get really crowded.\n[00:45 - 00:56] Speaker B: Yes, booking in advance is a good idea, especially during peak tourist season. It can save you a lot of time. By the way, I was going to mention Raphael's works in the Vatican Museums if you're planning to visit Rome.\n[00:57 - 01:02] Speaker A: Oh, I hadn't thought about that! I'll add it to my itinerary. Thanks for the tip!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the topic of Italy travel and recommendations.\n- Speaker A initiates the conversation about Italy.\n- Speaker B provides a relevant positive response about Italy.\n- Speaker A asks for specific recommendations, and Speaker B offers detailed and relevant suggestions (Amalfi Coast, Florence, Uffizi Gallery, artists).\n- Speaker A then asks a practical follow-up question directly related to one of Speaker B's suggestions (booking Uffizi tickets).\n- Speaker B answers the question and then smoothly transitions to another relevant travel tip (Vatican Museums), demonstrating foresight and helpfulness within the same topic.\n- Speaker A acknowledges and appreciates this additional relevant tip.\nThe conversation stays on topic, and the responses are consistently coherent and logical.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps detected: `[00:08 - 00:09]` (1 second) and `[00:34 - 00:35]` (1 second). These are short and natural, indicating active listening and turn-taking, rather than disruptive interruptions. The instructions state \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\". These fall into that category.\n- **Pauses:** The transitions between turns are smooth. There are 1-second pauses at `[00:16 - 00:17]` and `[00:56 - 00:57]`. These are very short and natural, not prolonged. There are no long pauses that would disrupt the flow or suggest hesitation or lack of engagement.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking contribute to a natural and fluent conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--595",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: I can't decide between the Galaxy S21 Ultra or the iPhone 12! Which do you think I should get?\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: That's a hard choice. I would say go for the iPhone.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker A: Why would you say it's better\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but have you considered what ecosystem you are more invested in? Like, do you already use other Apple products?\n[00:17 - 00:31] Speaker A: Well, the camera on the Samsung is better, but the iPhone has all the other amazing Apple software. The ecosystem is definitely a factor, but I was also thinking about the long-term software updates that Apple provides.\n[00:31 - 00:33] Speaker B: So you recommend the iPhone\n[00:32 - 00:40] Speaker A: Actually, I didn't finish my thought earlier. I was going to mention the resale value too. iPhones tend to hold their value better over time.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates the conversation seeking advice on a phone purchase. Speaker B provides an initial recommendation and then, very relevantly, asks a crucial clarifying question about the user's existing ecosystem, which is highly pertinent to such a decision. Speaker A's subsequent response elaborates on various factors (camera, software, ecosystem, updates), showing a thoughtful consideration of the criteria.\n\nHowever, there is a slight dip in logical consistency when Speaker B, at [00:31 - 00:33], prematurely concludes \"So you recommend the iPhone\" immediately after Speaker A has listed several factors, some of which (like Samsung's camera) are not in favor of the iPhone. Speaker A explicitly corrects this misunderstanding by stating, \"Actually, I didn't finish my thought earlier,\" demonstrating that the previous statement was part of an ongoing evaluation, not a conclusion. This correction immediately restores logical consistency. Despite this minor misinterpretation from Speaker B, the dialogue quickly self-corrects and remains highly relevant to the core topic of choosing a phone.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, reflecting natural conversation with some common conversational dynamics.\n\n1.  **Overlap [00:10 - 00:16]**: Speaker B overlaps Speaker A's \"Why would you say it's better.\" Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which mitigates the impact and shows awareness. The overlap is brief and not prolonged, serving to interject a clarifying question which is a natural conversational move. This is acceptable.\n2.  **Pause [00:16 - 00:17]**: There is a brief 1-second pause between Speaker B's and Speaker A's turns. This is a normal, acceptable pause and does not indicate a breakdown in fluency.\n3.  **Overlap [00:31 - 00:33]**: Speaker B begins speaking \"So you recommend the iPhone\" at 00:31, just as Speaker A finishes their long turn at 00:31. This is a very tight turn-taking, almost an immediate response, which is common in engaged conversation and not a harmful or extended overlap.\n4.  **Overlap [00:32 - 00:40]**: Speaker A overlaps Speaker B's preceding statement. Speaker A explicitly states, \"Actually, I didn't finish my thought earlier,\" indicating a reason for the interruption (to correct a misunderstanding and complete a thought). This type of overlap, though an interruption, is functional and not prolonged. It serves to clarify the speaker's intent and keeps the conversation efficient.\n\nNone of the overlaps are extended or disruptive to the point of being harmful. They are brief, contextually explainable, and reflect dynamic, natural turn-taking. There are no long pauses that hinder the flow of conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--72836",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:10] Speaker A: I want to touch your body because I want to feel the warmth of your skin and the beating of your heart. I want to feel your breath on my cheek and your hair brushing against my face as\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: Why do you want to touch my body?\n[00:11 - 00:20] Speaker A: Because I find you very attractive and touching your body would be a way of feeling closer to you. It would also be a way of expressing my affection and deepening\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B: But why do you find me attractive? What is it about me that you like?\n[00:23 - 00:33] Speaker A: There are many things about you that I find attractive. I like the way you look, the sound of your voice, the way you smell, and the way you make me feel when I'm around you.\n[00:34 - 00:36] Speaker B: But why do those things attract you to me?\n[00:36 - 00:42] Speaker A: I'm not sure. They just do. I find myself drawn to you and wanting to be near you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B's questions consistently follow Speaker A's previous statements, drilling down into the core topic of attraction and physical desire.\n- Speaker A expresses a desire to touch Speaker B and provides reasons.\n- Speaker B asks \"Why do you want to touch my body?\", a direct and logical follow-up.\n- Speaker A explains attraction and closeness as reasons.\n- Speaker B then logically probes deeper with \"But why do you find me attractive? What is it about me that you like?\", building on Speaker A's mention of attraction.\n- Speaker A lists specific attractive qualities.\n- Speaker B continues to probe the *reasons* for these attractions: \"But why do those things attract you to me?\"\n- Speaker A's final response, \"I'm not sure. They just do. I find myself drawn to you and wanting to be near you,\" is a relevant answer, even if it's an admission of not knowing the exact *why*. It directly addresses the question and maintains logical consistency.\nThere are no irrelevant replies, topic shifts, or inconsistencies. The conversation flows logically from one point to the next, demonstrating clear topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good.\n- **Overlaps:**\n    - [00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B starts while Speaker A is finishing [00:00 - 00:10]. The overlap is from 00:09 to 00:10 (1 second). This is a brief overlap, which is acceptable and common in natural conversation, indicating active listening and eagerness to respond.\n    - [00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B starts while Speaker A is finishing [00:11 - 00:20]. The overlap is from 00:19 to 00:20 (1 second). Again, this is a brief, acceptable overlap.\nThe prompt states that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" These fit that description; they are not prolonged or disruptive.\n- **Pauses:**\n    - The pause between Speaker A's turn ending at 00:33 and Speaker B's turn starting at 00:34 is 1 second. This is a small, natural pause.\nOther transitions are immediate (e.g., 00:11, 00:23, 00:36).\nThere are no long pauses that would disrupt the flow or indicate hesitation. The conversation feels natural and responsive in its timing.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--497",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hello!\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Hi! How are you doing?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: I'm doing well! How has your day been going?\n[00:06 - 00:12] Speaker B: Oh it's been pretty stressful. I have a lot of gardening to do, so my fingers have been pretty sore today.\n[00:12 - 00:13] Speaker A: Oh, that's too bad.\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker B: Can I ask you a gardening question?\n[00:16 - 00:17] Speaker A: Sure!\n[00:17 - 00:28] Speaker B: So I was trying to grow squash in my garden. Unfortunately, I didn't know how much water to give them. I tried leaving the hose out all day, but then I was watering the lawn instead. Do you know what I should do to\n[00:27 - 00:38] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but over-watering can be a big issue. Have you considered using a drip irrigation system? It can provide a more controlled water supply directly to the roots.\n[00:38 - 00:46] Speaker B: I hadn't thought of that. But I was also wondering if moving them to pots and using a grow lamp might be a better option to avoid overwatering the lawn.\n[00:46 - 00:56] Speaker A: That's a good point. I think the best thing would be to bring them inside in a pot and put them under a grow lamp. It's safer that way, and you don't have to worry about over watering them.\n[00:57 - 00:58] Speaker B: Okay, thanks!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate excellent response relevance and topic coherence.\n- The initial greetings and check-ins are appropriate.\n- Speaker B naturally transitions from discussing their stressful day to asking a gardening question, which is logically consistent with their prior mention of \"gardening to do\" and \"sore fingers.\"\n- Speaker A's interruption at [00:27] is highly relevant to Speaker B's incomplete thought about watering, offering a direct solution to the over-watering issue. The \"Sorry to jump in\" indicates awareness and politeness despite the interruption.\n- Speaker B acknowledges Speaker A's suggestion and then introduces an alternative solution (\"moving them to pots and using a grow lamp\"), which is also directly related to avoiding overwatering the lawn and shows coherent problem-solving.\n- Speaker A validates Speaker B's new idea and elaborates on why it's a good solution, demonstrating active listening and helpfulness.\n- The conversation stays focused on the gardening problem and its solutions throughout. There are no irrelevant or illogical turns.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses that do exist are brief and natural (e.g., 1-second gaps), allowing for smooth turn-taking.\n- There is one instance of an overlap: Speaker A starts speaking at [00:27] while Speaker B is still speaking until [00:28]. This is a brief overlap of approximately 1 second. Crucially, Speaker A acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the overlap feel less disruptive and more natural, indicating a keenness to offer help. This type of brief, acknowledged, and content-rich overlap is common in natural conversation and does not hinder the overall fluency of the interaction. It is not prolonged or disruptive to the point of being harmful.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--51",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Taxi!\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Where will you go, sir?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker A: Friendship Hotel.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker B: OK, it's not far from here, just\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I have something important to do, can you fast the speed?\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: Sure, I'll try my best. Here we are.\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker A: It's fast! How much should I pay you?\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker B: The reading on the meter is 15 yuan.\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker A: Here's 20 yuan, keep the change.\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker B: Thank you very much. Oh, and I was about to mention, the Friendship Hotel entrance is around the corner, so you might need to walk a bit.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement, maintaining a clear and coherent narrative of a taxi ride.\n\n*   Speaker A's initial \"Taxi!\" is a clear prompt.\n*   Speaker B's \"Where will you go, sir?\" is the expected and logical follow-up.\n*   Speaker A provides the destination, which Speaker B acknowledges and comments on.\n*   Speaker A's interruption to request faster speed is logically consistent with having \"something important to do.\"\n*   Speaker B's immediate \"Sure, I'll try my best. Here we are.\" is a quick and relevant response to the urgency, even if the \"Here we are\" implies an almost impossibly fast trip, it serves the narrative of fulfilling the request for speed.\n*   Speaker A's \"It's fast! How much should I pay you?\" is a direct and logical reaction to the implied speed and the end of the ride.\n*   The subsequent exchange about payment (meter reading, payment, keeping change) is standard and highly relevant.\n*   Speaker B's final remark about the hotel entrance adds helpful, relevant information that a good service provider might offer, showing a logical extension of customer service.\n\nThe topic remains consistently about the taxi service and the journey from start to end.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very strong, mimicking natural conversation.\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between turns. Most turns follow immediately (0s pause) or with a very brief, natural pause (1s). This contributes to a dynamic and engaging conversation flow.\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one instance of overlap: `[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I have something important to do, can you fast the speed?` which overlaps with Speaker B's turn `[00:04 - 00:07]`. This overlap is brief (approximately 1 second, from 00:06 to 00:07) and, crucially, is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker A with \"Sorry to interrupt.\" This makes the overlap an *intentional* and *natural* part of the interaction, demonstrating a real-world conversational dynamic rather than a disruptive error. It enhances the realism and does not hinder communication.\n\nOverall, the turn-taking is smooth, and the timing feels appropriate for a direct, task-oriented conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--675",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What do you think of the Macbook?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: It's great. Do you want to buy one\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I just remembered, do you know if the Macbook has any new features compared to the previous model?\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: Yes, it has a better processor and improved battery life. Haha I think it's a bit expensive.\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker A: I think so too. How about the Surface Pro 4? Is it\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker B: Actually, I was wondering if the Surface Pro 4 is compatible with the software we use at work. Do you know anything about that?\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: That's a good point. I believe it is compatible, but I'll need to double-check to be sure.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial response to the Macbook question is relevant, and the follow-up question is appropriate.\n- Speaker A's subsequent question about new features, despite the \"sorry to interrupt\" (which might indicate a minor internal processing or a very brief pause not explicitly timestamped), stays on topic.\n- Speaker B's answer about new features and price is directly relevant.\n- Speaker A then transitions to the \"Surface Pro 4,\" a related device.\n- Crucially, Speaker B's utterance at [00:20 - 00:26] overlaps Speaker A's, but B's question (\"Actually, I was wondering if the Surface Pro 4 is compatible...\") is *directly related* to the topic Speaker A was introducing. This indicates a shared mental model or a natural anticipation of the topic, making the response highly relevant despite the overlap. It doesn't break coherence; rather, it reinforces it as both speakers are thinking along similar lines.\n- Speaker A's final response addresses B's compatibility question directly.\nOverall, the conversation flows logically, and responses consistently relate to the ongoing or naturally evolving topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally very good.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Most transitions are immediate or involve very brief, natural pauses (e.g., 1 second between [00:15] and [00:16]).\n- The main point of evaluation for fluency is the overlap between Speaker A [00:16 - 00:21] and Speaker B [00:20 - 00:26]. Speaker B begins speaking at 00:20 while Speaker A is still saying \"Is it\" at 00:20-00:21. This is a 1-second overlap. According to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" A 1-second overlap at the very end of one speaker's turn, especially when the second speaker's utterance is directly on the anticipated topic, falls into the category of a \"brief overlap\" and is quite natural in spontaneous conversation. It does not appear to be \"prolonged\" or lead to \"overlapping turns\" where both speakers are competing for the floor for an extended period. It does not cause any disruption or communication breakdown.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--119",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Excuse me. Can you tell me how to get started using these machines?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Of course. Are you a new member here?\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker A: Yes.\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker B: Welcome. My name is Johnson.\n[00:10 - 00:11] Speaker A: Nice to meet you.\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker B: Do you have any experience using weights?\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker A: No, I don't. So I need some help.\n[00:17 - 00:23] Speaker B: Well, first it is important to go through a good stretch. You must warm up properly so that you don't hurt yourself on the equipment. It's\n[00:23 - 00:33] Speaker A: Machines, right? Yes, I know that. Derek just led me through the warm up in the aerobics room. So I'm ready, I think. I can start using the machines.\n[00:33 - 00:36] Speaker B: Alright. Great. Then we must get a card for you.\n[00:36 - 00:41] Speaker A: What do you mean--a membership card? I already have it, but\n[00:40 - 00:48] Speaker B: No. Not that. I mean a training card. The card allows you to keep track of how much weight you use on each machine. Here, let me show you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B consistently provides relevant information and guidance based on Speaker A's initial request to learn how to use the machines and subsequent revelations (new member, no experience). Speaker A's questions and clarifications (e.g., \"Machines, right?\", \"What do you mean--a membership card?\") are pertinent to understanding the process. The conversation flows logically from greeting and assessment of experience to initial safety advice (warm-up) and then practical steps (training card). There are no irrelevant turns, abrupt topic shifts, or contradictions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is largely natural and appropriate. There are no instances of long pauses between speaker turns. There are two very brief overlaps:\n1.  At [00:23], Speaker A begins speaking precisely as Speaker B concludes their sentence (\"It's\"). Speaker A's response \"Machines, right?\" immediately follows and clarifies Speaker B's truncated thought, indicating active listening and a natural, quick turn-taking. This is a brief, almost seamless transition.\n2.  At [00:40], Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still saying \"but\". This is a slight interruption. However, Speaker B immediately clarifies the confusion (\"No. Not that. I mean a training card.\"), demonstrating that they understood Speaker A's intent despite the overlap. This overlap is also brief and does not hinder the overall understanding or flow of the conversation.\n\nNeither of these overlaps are \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" in a way that would be considered harmful or disruptive. They reflect natural conversational dynamics rather than problematic interactional issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--288",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Terrible. How about people's lives?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Fortunately, there is no person injured, but\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: That's great. It seems that Typhoon is not as bad as earthquake.\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Yeah. Earthquake is one of the most badly natural disasters in the world.\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker A: That's why many people died in the earthquake, especially\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but speaking of earthquakes, do you remember the Wenchuan earthquake? That was devastating.\n[00:22 - 00:34] Speaker A: Yes, the Wenchuan earthquake was indeed catastrophic. I was just about to mention that many people died in the earthquake. We've experienced the 8.0 magnitude earthquake in Wenchuan.\n[00:34 - 00:39] Speaker B: We're all familiar with natural disasters, but we still feel weak when we face something like the Wenchuan earthquake.\n[00:40 - 00:50] Speaker A: Right. But people at that time only knew two words, 'save' and 'assistance'. They would never lift a finger. Life is the most important compared with anything else.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. The conversation flows smoothly from an initial discussion about the impact of a typhoon (implied by Speaker A's \"Terrible. How about people's lives?\" and Speaker B's \"no person injured\") to a comparison with earthquakes, then to a specific example of the Wenchuan earthquake, and finally to broader reflections on human resilience and the value of life during such disasters.\n\n*   Speaker A's initial question about \"people's lives\" is directly addressed by Speaker B.\n*   Speaker A's subsequent comment comparing typhoons and earthquakes builds directly on the previous information.\n*   Speaker B's \"Yeah. Earthquake is one of the most badly natural disasters in the world\" logically follows A's comparison.\n*   Speaker B's interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt, but speaking of earthquakes...\") is not only relevant but also explicitly signals a smooth, related topic shift to a specific, well-known earthquake (Wenchuan). This demonstrates strong topic coherence and an ability to elaborate on the general theme with concrete examples.\n*   Speaker A's response (\"Yes, the Wenchuan earthquake was indeed catastrophic. I was just about to mention...\") perfectly ties B's specific example back to A's earlier, more general point about the deadliness of earthquakes, showcasing excellent logical consistency.\n*   The final turns continue this reflective theme, generalizing from the Wenchuan example to the human response to natural disasters.\nAll turns contribute meaningfully to the conversation's progression and stay within a coherent thematic scope.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good. There are two instances of brief overlaps, but they are short and do not hinder comprehension or the flow of conversation.\n\n*   **[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A** overlaps **[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B** for 1 second. Speaker A is reacting to the positive news (\"That's great\") about no injuries while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. This is a natural type of overlap in spontaneous conversation, indicating active listening and quick uptake.\n*   **[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker B** overlaps **[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker A** for 1 second. Crucially, Speaker B explicitly says, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which demonstrates good conversational awareness and mitigates any negative impact of the overlap. This shows an attempt at polite turn-taking, even when initiating an overlap.\n\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns. The responses are prompt and maintain a natural pace, contributing to a fluent and engaging interaction. The brief overlaps are within acceptable limits and actually enhance the naturalness of the dialogue rather than detracting from it.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--417",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Are there any movies you'd recommend I watch?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: I've seen so many movies over the years - what do you like?\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: I'd love some recommendations on romantic comedies. I really loved Crazy Rich Asians.\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker B: Okay, I'll have a think and\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker A: Oh, before I forget, have you seen \"To All the Boys I've Loved Before\"? It's another great romantic comedy.\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: That's a fantastic suggestion! I was actually going to mention that one. But I haven't mentioned my other favorite yet which is\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: Speaking of favorites, how do you feel about \"The Proposal\"? It's one of my all-time favorites!\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker B: \"The Proposal\" is great! I was also thinking of recommending \"When Harry Met Sally.\" Have you seen it?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. The conversation consistently stays on topic, revolving around movie recommendations, specifically romantic comedies. Speaker B's initial question about preferences is a logical and relevant way to narrow down recommendations. Speaker A provides relevant examples (\"Crazy Rich Asians,\" \"To All the Boys I've Loved Before,\" \"The Proposal\"). Speaker B's responses acknowledge Speaker A's suggestions and offer further relevant recommendations (\"When Harry Met Sally\"). There are no instances of topic drift, illogical responses, or inconsistencies. Each turn builds on the previous one in a coherent manner.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is poor due to significant and extended overlaps.\n1.  **[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker A overlaps [00:13 - 00:15] Speaker B:** Speaker A begins speaking at 00:14 (\"Oh, before I forget...\") while Speaker B is still mid-sentence (\"Okay, I'll have a think and\"). This is an extended overlap where Speaker B is cut off, making their turn incomplete.\n2.  **[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A overlaps [00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B:** Speaker A starts speaking at 00:26 (\"Speaking of favorites...\") while Speaker B is again mid-sentence (\"But I haven't mentioned my other favorite yet which is\"). This is another significant overlap where Speaker B is cut off, disrupting the flow and preventing them from completing their thought or recommendation.\nThese prolonged overlaps are harmful as they prevent speakers from completing their turns and create a disjointed conversational experience.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--504",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Who was the first U.S. President?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: George Washington was the first president.\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: Who was the first female U.S. president?\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: I think that was Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first woman to run for\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: Actually, I believe Geraldine Ferraro was a vice-presidential candidate, not a president.\n[00:16 - 00:18] Speaker B: Wow! I would like to be a president someday.\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker A: What would you like to do when you are president?\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker B: I would like to bring peace to the Middle East.\n[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker A: Why do you want to do that?\n[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker B: I want to bring peace so that everyone can live without\n[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker A: Hold on, before you finish, can you explain how you plan to achieve that peace?\n[00:33 - 00:36] Speaker B: I want to bring peace so that everyone can get along.\n[00:36 - 00:39] Speaker A: I like that goal. I think you should work on that.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance.\n- **Logical consistency and topic coherence:**\n    - Speaker B's initial answer about George Washington is direct and accurate.\n    - Speaker A's follow-up question about a female president is a logical progression.\n    - Speaker B's attempt to answer (mentioning Geraldine Ferraro) is relevant, even if factually incorrect.\n    - Speaker A's immediate correction is highly relevant and demonstrates active listening and factual knowledge.\n    - Speaker B's shift to personal ambition (\"I would like to be a president someday\") is a natural, human-like reaction to the previous discussion about presidents and effectively transitions the topic.\n    - Speaker A picks up on this new topic with a relevant question (\"What would you like to do when you are president?\").\n    - Speaker B's goal of bringing peace to the Middle East is a clear answer.\n    - Speaker A's follow-up (\"Why do you want to do that?\") and subsequent interruption for clarification (\"Hold on... how you plan to achieve that peace?\") are highly relevant and push for deeper understanding.\n    - Speaker B's final response, while somewhat vague in terms of \"how\" and more reiterating the \"why,\" is still relevant to the established goal.\n    - Speaker A's concluding remark is supportive and relevant to Speaker B's stated ambition.\nOverall, the conversation flows logically, transitions coherently between related topics, and responses consistently address the previous turn's content.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with only minor acceptable deviations.\n- **Long pauses:** There are no long pauses. Most pauses between turns are 1 second or less, which is natural and acceptable.\n- **Extended overlaps:**\n    - **[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: ...first woman to run for**\n    - **[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: Actually, I believe Geraldine Ferraro was...**\n        - This is a 2-second overlap where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still talking. Speaker A's interruption is to provide a factual correction, which is a common and often efficient conversational move. While it cuts off Speaker B's sentence, it's not \"prolonged\" (e.g., 3+ seconds) to the point of being significantly harmful or disruptive to the overall flow, especially given its purpose. It's more of an assertive correction.\n    - **[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker B: ...everyone can live without**\n    - **[00:28 - 00:33] Speaker A: Hold on, before you finish, can you explain...**\n        - This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A explicitly signals the interruption with \"Hold on,\" which makes it a managed and very natural part of conversation to ask for clarification before the speaker continues. This is a \"brief overlap\" and is acceptable.\nNeither overlap feels \"prolonged\" or significantly detrimental to the interaction. The overall rhythm and turn-taking feel natural for a dynamic conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--408",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm so glad I have this oceanography class! We learn about such interesting life in the sea.\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: I'm excited to take this course as well. I'd love to have a deeper understanding of oceanography.\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker A: Have you taken a class like this before?\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker B: No, this will be my first time.\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: Oh wow, I'm sure it's going to be great! Have you decided if you're going to take it yet?\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker B: I think I'm going to register for\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but do you know if there are any prerequisites for this course?\n[00:28 - 00:35] Speaker B: Not that I'm aware of, but I should probably check. That's great! Oceanography is so cool. Have you ever been to an aquarium?\n[00:35 - 00:41] Speaker A: Yeah, I've been to an aquarium before. It was one of the coolest things I've ever done.\n[00:41 - 00:46] Speaker B: I totally agree! It was so amazing! I loved seeing all of the fish up close.\n[00:46 - 00:50] Speaker A: I've got my fingers crossed that I get to go again. Have you been to one?\n[00:51 - 00:56] Speaker B: I went to the Monterey Bay Aquarium once when I was in elementary school. It was so amazing!\n[00:56 - 01:02] Speaker A: I'm hoping to go again when I'm in the area. Do you have any other favorite animals?\n[01:02 - 01:05] Speaker B: Of course! I love pandas, cats, and [interrupt]\n[01:04 - 01:08] Speaker A: Oh, pandas are my favorite too! Have you ever seen one in person?\n[01:08 - 01:12] Speaker B: Yes, I saw one at the zoo last year. Same! I love pandas and cats!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker turns are highly relevant to the preceding statements, and questions are answered directly and expanded upon. For example, Speaker A's initial enthusiasm for oceanography is met with Speaker B's shared excitement. The conversation smoothly transitions from discussing the oceanography course (including prerequisites) to related topics like aquariums, and then more generally to favorite animals. While there are a couple of topic shifts (e.g., from prerequisites to aquariums at 0:28, and from aquariums to other favorite animals at 1:02), these are natural and common in conversational flow, maintaining overall coherence within the broader theme of \"animals\" or \"sea life\" that started with oceanography. There is one minor point where Speaker A asks \"Have you been to one?\" at 0:49, which is slightly redundant given Speaker B's previous statement at 0:41 implying they had. However, Speaker B's detailed response at 0:51 clarifies and adds information, making the exchange still productive. The interruptions are also logically consistent, with Speaker A jumping in to ask a relevant question about prerequisites (0:23) or to express shared enthusiasm for pandas (1:04), which immediately picks up on Speaker B's ongoing thought.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth and responsive conversation. The two instances of overlap are brief and natural, rather than prolonged or harmful.\n1.  At [00:23 - 00:28], Speaker A interrupts Speaker B with \"Sorry to jump in, but do you know if there are any prerequisites for this course?\". This overlap is brief (1 second, as Speaker B's turn ends at 0:24) and Speaker A explicitly acknowledges the interruption, which makes it feel polite and natural, indicating active engagement.\n2.  At [01:04 - 01:08], Speaker A interrupts Speaker B with \"Oh, pandas are my favorite too!\". This is also a brief overlap (1 second, as B's turn begins at 0:02), and is a classic example of a \"collaborative overlap\" where one speaker jumps in out of shared enthusiasm for a just-mentioned topic. It enhances the sense of connection and shared interest, rather than disrupting the flow.\nBoth overlaps are short and serve to maintain the dynamism and engagement of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--8646",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I'm so glad I have someone like\n[00:01 - 00:06] Speaker B: Do you really mean that? Sometimes I wonder if I show you enough how much I care.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker A: Of course, I mean it. I'm glad I have you too.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's question, \"Do you really mean that?\", directly addresses Speaker A's initial sentiment. Speaker B then elaborates on their own feelings, which is a natural and coherent follow-up. Speaker A's subsequent response, \"Of course, I mean it. I'm glad I have you too,\" directly answers B's question and reciprocates the sentiment, maintaining perfect topic coherence. The conversation flows logically and emotionally.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one overlap in the conversation: Speaker B starts speaking at `00:01` while Speaker A is still speaking, who finishes at `00:02`. This results in a 1-second overlap. According to the scoring criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" A 1-second overlap in a short, emotionally charged exchange like this is generally considered brief and natural, indicative of engaged conversation rather than a harmful disruption. There are no prolonged pauses between turns; Speaker A's second turn begins immediately after Speaker B finishes. Overall, the interaction flows very naturally.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--259",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Listen to this. Mary got married.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Is she really? I can't believe it!\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: Yes. Yesterday.\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: Good gracious. That's incredible!\n[00:09 - 00:10] Speaker A: She married Jerrod.\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker B: You're kidding. Wait, Jerrod? The one who used to\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker A: Yes, the one who works in finance. I was going to say she's going to live in Paris.\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker B: Really? I'm surprised. I mean, did she mention anything about how she feels about moving to a whole new country?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout.\n- Speaker B's initial reactions (\"Is she really? I can't believe it!\", \"Good gracious. That's incredible!\") are direct and natural responses to Speaker A's news about Mary's marriage.\n- Speaker A consistently provides relevant follow-up details (date of marriage, name of groom, living in Paris) that logically extend the initial topic.\n- Speaker B's clarification question about Jerrod (\"Wait, Jerrod? The one who used to\") is directly addressed by Speaker A (\"Yes, the one who works in finance\").\n- Speaker B's final question about Mary's feelings on moving to Paris is a logical and coherent follow-up to Speaker A's revelation about Mary living in Paris.\nThe conversation flows naturally from one point to the next, with each speaker's turn building upon or reacting to the previous statement, maintaining excellent topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses are consistently brief (e.g., 1 second between [00:02]-[00:03] and [00:10]-[00:11]), indicating natural, quick turn-taking.\n- There are instances of immediate turn-taking, and potentially very brief overlaps (e.g., Speaker A starting at [00:13] just as Speaker B finishes \"The one who used to\" at [00:13], and Speaker B starting at [00:18] as Speaker A finishes at [00:18]). These brief overlaps are characteristic of natural, engaged conversation and are explicitly stated as acceptable in the scoring criteria.\n- There are no extended or prolonged overlaps that disrupt the flow or cause confusion. The conversation moves smoothly and organically.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--51662",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, how do you think I'm doing?\n[00:02 - 00:12] Speaker B: You're progressing quite nicely, Lidia. You have a natural gracefulness about you that translates well to ballet. Keep up the good work and you'll be dancing like a pro in no time if\n[00:11 - 00:19] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but do you think I should focus more on my footwork or my posture right now? I want to make sure I'm practicing the right things.\n[00:20 - 00:34] Speaker B: Both are important, but I'd say posture is key at this stage. Once you have that down, the footwork will come more naturally. It's a beautiful art form that takes a lot of discipline and practice, but it's so worth it when you finally nail that perfect pirouette or arabesque.\n[00:34 - 00:43] Speaker A: I'm not quite there yet, but I'm definitely getting better with each lesson. Thanks for helping me out, [ballet teacher's name].\n[00:44 - 00:46] Speaker B: My pleasure, Lidia. See you next week!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance.\n*   Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's general question about their progress, providing positive feedback and encouragement.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up question, though an overlap, is directly related to improving ballet performance, building on the topic introduced by Speaker B. The question about footwork vs. posture is a natural next step for someone learning ballet.\n*   Speaker B's subsequent response directly answers Speaker A's specific question about footwork and posture, offering clear advice and elaborating on the art form, maintaining topic coherence.\n*   Speaker A's final response acknowledges the advice and expresses gratitude, which is a logical and relevant conclusion to the interaction.\n*   Speaker B's closing remarks are also relevant to the interaction's context (teacher-student relationship).\nThe conversation maintains logical consistency and stays on topic throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency.\n*   The initial pause between Speaker A and Speaker B is 1 second ([00:01] end of A, [00:02] start of B), which is natural and acceptable.\n*   There is a brief overlap between Speaker B and Speaker A from [00:11 - 00:12]. Speaker A starts speaking at [00:11] while Speaker B finishes at [00:12]. This is only a 1-second overlap. Crucially, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this overlap by saying \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating awareness and politeness, which makes the brief overlap perfectly natural and not disruptive or prolonged.\n*   The pause between Speaker B and Speaker A ([00:19] end of A, [00:20] start of B) is 1 second, which is natural.\n*   The transition from Speaker B to Speaker A at [00:34] is immediate (0-second pause), which is also a sign of natural, engaged conversation.\n*   The final pause between Speaker A and Speaker B ([00:43] end of A, [00:44] start of B) is 1 second, which is natural.\nNo long pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps are present. The acknowledged brief overlap is handled gracefully.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--8746",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, Alex. What's up?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Not much. Just hanging out. What about you?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm working on a school project. It's due soon, and I really want to make sure\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker B: Oh, what's the deadline? Do you have enough time to finish everything?\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker A: The deadline is next week, so I'm a bit pressed for time. I really want to do well on it.\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker B: That sounds great! I'm sure you'll do fine. What's the project about?\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker A: We have to pick a current event and then write an in-depth paper on it. I chose the Syrian refugee crisis because\n[00:29 - 00:38] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but that's a really complex issue. Are you focusing on a specific aspect of it, like the humanitarian response or the political implications?\n[00:39 - 00:51] Speaker A: I'm focusing more on the humanitarian response, but I also plan to touch on the political implications briefly. There's just so much to cover, and I want to make sure I do it justice.\n[00:52 - 00:58] Speaker B: Wow, that's heavy stuff. But I think you'll be able to handle it. You're always so driven and motivated.\n[00:58 - 01:12] Speaker A: Thanks, Alex. I appreciate your confidence in me. I'm determined to write a good paper and get a good grade on it. But it's not going to be easy. There's a lot of research involved, and I want to make sure I cover everything thoroughly.\n[01:13 - 01:16] Speaker B: Well, if anyone can do it, Kaitlynne, it's you!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's questions and comments consistently build upon Speaker A's statements, showing active listening and engagement. For example, when Speaker A mentions a school project, Speaker B immediately asks about the deadline and project details. When Speaker A reveals the complex topic, Speaker B offers a relevant clarifying question about the focus (\"Are you focusing on a specific aspect...?\"). Speaker B's encouragement throughout the conversation is also logically tied to Speaker A's expressed challenges and determination. The conversation maintains clear topic coherence, staying focused on the school project from start to finish. There are no instances where speakers go off-topic or provide irrelevant responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural. There are two instances of brief overlap:\n- At `[00:08 - 00:12]`, Speaker B starts asking \"Oh, what's the deadline?\" just as Speaker A is finishing \"make sure\". This is a very common and natural brief overlap in conversational turn-taking, not a prolonged or harmful one.\n- At `[00:29 - 00:38]`, Speaker B explicitly states \"Sorry to jump in,\" which indicates a conscious and natural interruption to ask a clarifying question. This brief overlap is acknowledged by the speaker and contributes to the dynamic flow of the conversation, rather than detracting from it.\nAll pauses between turns are consistently short (approximately 1 second, e.g., `[00:18]` to `[00:19]`, `[00:51]` to `[00:52]`, `[01:12]` to `[01:13]`). These are considered small, natural pauses and do not constitute \"long pauses.\" There are no extended overlaps or long silences detected.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--204",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:15] Speaker A: So that concludes the introduction. Now let's move to the first part of my talk, which is about the 2006 fiscal year marketing plan. So first, right off the bat, when looking at the marketing plan, tell me some of the goals that we had set this year to begin with...\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker B: We wanted to appeal to a younger set of consumers and also, in line with that goal, redo our image... to make\n[00:20 - 00:30] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but did we ever finalize the budget for this image overhaul? I remember there were some discussions, but I'm not sure where we landed.\n[00:30 - 00:42] Speaker B: Yes, the budget was finalized, but I was going to mention that we also planned to expand our social media presence. Speaking of which, do you think our current platforms are sufficient, or should we explore new ones?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's first response directly addresses Speaker A's request for marketing plan goals.\n- Speaker A's interruption, while cutting off Speaker B, is immediately relevant to the \"redo our image\" point Speaker B was making, showing a clear follow-up question related to the discussion. Speaker A also acknowledges the interruption, which makes it feel less disruptive and more of a clarification.\n- Speaker B's second response first directly answers Speaker A's budget question (\"Yes, the budget was finalized\") before seamlessly transitioning back to the original topic of goals (\"but I was going to mention that we also planned to expand our social media presence\"). This demonstrates excellent logical consistency and an ability to manage multiple threads of conversation effectively.\n- Speaker B then logically extends the topic by asking a follow-up question about social media platforms, maintaining coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction shows good fluency.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Each speaker picks up the conversation immediately after the previous one.\n- There is one brief overlap: Speaker A starts speaking at [00:20] while Speaker B is still finishing a sentence that ends at [00:21]. This is a 1-second overlap. This is classified as a \"brief overlap\" and is acceptable, especially since Speaker A immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to jump in\"). It indicates an eager, engaged participant rather than a disruptive one.\n- There are no extended overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--115903",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Wow, this is a lot bigger than my current place. How much are you asking for?\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: We're asking for $400,000.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker A: I'll give you $350,000.\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: That's too low, I'm sorry. We won't be able to accept an\n[00:12 - 00:21] Speaker A: I understand, but $350,000 is really where I feel comfortable. Can you meet me halfway at $375,000?\n[00:22 - 00:25] Speaker B: Okay, how about $375,000?\n[00:25 - 00:28] Speaker A: Let me talk to my spouse and see if they're on board\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker B: Before you do that, can you confirm if you're pre-approved for that amount? It might help in your discussion.\n[00:33 - 00:39] Speaker A: Yes, we are pre-approved. I'll just need to check with my spouse, and then we can move forward.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance throughout the dialogue is excellent.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker A asks for a price, Speaker B provides it, Speaker A counter-offers, Speaker B rejects and Speaker A makes a new offer, Speaker B seems to accept, Speaker A states a condition (consult spouse), and Speaker B asks a highly relevant pre-emptive question about pre-approval. Speaker A then answers and confirms the next steps. The progression of a negotiation is clearly and logically depicted.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The conversation consistently stays on the topic of the property sale and its price negotiation. There are no digressions or irrelevant statements. Speaker B's question about pre-approval, while an interjection, is directly coherent with the ongoing negotiation and the practicalities of a real estate transaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, but with two notable overlaps:\n1.  **[00:12 - 00:21] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B (00:11-00:14):** Speaker A begins speaking at 00:12 while Speaker B is still in the middle of their sentence (\"...accept an\"). This is an overlap of approximately 2 seconds. While Speaker A's interjection immediately leads to a new, constructive offer, this does constitute Speaker A cutting off Speaker B, which can disrupt natural flow. However, it's not excessively prolonged and the conversation quickly re-establishes turn-taking.\n2.  **[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A (00:25-00:28):** Speaker B begins speaking at 00:27 while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence (\"...on board\"). This is an overlap of approximately 1 second. This is a very brief overlap, which often occurs naturally in dynamic conversations where one speaker anticipates the end of another's turn to interject with a relevant follow-up. It doesn't significantly hinder understanding or flow.\n\n**Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The conversation maintains a steady pace.\n\n**Overall Fluency Evaluation:** The overlaps, especially the 2-second one where Speaker B is cut off, are slightly less than ideal but do not represent \"significant issues\" that make the conversation unnatural or difficult to follow. The turns are timely otherwise, and the conversation flows well despite these brief interjections. The phrase \"brief overlaps are acceptable\" suggests that these short durations do not detract significantly from the overall naturalness, especially in a dynamic negotiation context.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 5
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--232",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi, Laura. Where are you heading with that big bag?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: I'm off to the gym. I've got to stay in shape, you know.\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: I know more women who exercise than men. What's the main reason you do that? For your health, or to maintain a\n[00:13 - 00:21] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but it's interesting you mention that. I think it's a mix of both, really. With women, good looks are always a very important consideration.\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker A: I see. How about you? Do you get any regular exercise?\n[00:26 - 00:34] Speaker B: I do a lot of walking for exercise and enjoyment—sometimes ten to twenty kilometers at a time. But I never go to the gym like you do.\n[00:34 - 00:38] Speaker A: Well, walking is a good exercise. How about sports?\n[00:38 - 00:46] Speaker B: Not since my school days. I used to love playing baseball, but it's impossible to get enough people together for a game now. Mostly I just watch sports on TV or\n[00:45 - 00:53] Speaker A: Oh, speaking of sports, I play tennis fairly regularly with my friends and sometimes go swimming and cycling by myself.\n[00:54 - 01:00] Speaker B: Oh, I forgot about that. I go cycling sometimes too. And I often go swimming on vacation, but only recreational swimming.\n[01:01 - 01:03] Speaker A: Why don't you join me at the gym sometime?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement, maintaining topic coherence throughout the conversation about exercise and sports.\n- Speaker B's initial response about going to the gym is a direct answer to Speaker A's question.\n- Speaker A's follow-up about reasons for exercise is a logical continuation.\n- Speaker B's \"Sorry to cut in\" acknowledges the slight overlap but then directly answers A's question about the reasons for exercise for women.\n- The conversation then seamlessly shifts to Speaker B's exercise habits, then to sports, and finally to shared activities and a suggestion to join.\nThere are no instances of off-topic remarks or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- The dialogue flows very naturally with appropriate turn-taking.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - [00:13 - 00:21] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A for 1 second. Speaker B immediately acknowledges this with \"Sorry to cut in,\" which is a natural conversational repair mechanism. This indicates awareness and politeness, making the overlap non-disruptive.\n    - [00:45 - 00:53] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B for 1 second. Speaker A uses the phrase \"Oh, speaking of sports,\" which is a common and natural way to smoothly transition into a related point, even with a slight overlap.\n- No long pauses are detected between turns; the longest gaps are around 1 second, which is perfectly acceptable and natural in conversation.\nThe presence of brief, natural overlaps and the absence of prolonged pauses contribute to a highly fluent and realistic interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--657",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I was wondering if you wanted to go for a run.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: Sure - when?\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker A: I was thinking about heading out soon - does 6:00 sound good to you, or\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Wait, do you know if the weather will be good at that time? I don't want to get caught in the rain.\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker A: I checked the forecast, and it should be clear. So, does 6:00 sound good to you?\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B: I could probably do that. But I'll have to take a quick shower before\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker A: Oh, and don't forget to bring water. It's important to stay hydrated.\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker B: Definitely, I'll remember that. But I'll have to take a quick shower first.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building coherently towards the goal of planning a run.\n- Speaker B's \"Sure - when?\" is a direct and relevant follow-up to Speaker A's invitation.\n- Speaker B's concern about the weather is a natural and practical question when planning an outdoor activity, directly relevant to the proposed time.\n- Speaker A's response addresses the weather concern directly and then re-confirms the time, maintaining topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's acceptance with the mention of a shower is a logical personal contingency.\n- Speaker A's reminder about water is a helpful and relevant piece of advice for a run.\n- Speaker B's final remark confirms understanding and re-emphasizes their need for a shower, consistently staying on topic.\nThere are no instances of topic drift, illogical jumps, or irrelevant remarks.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good, reflecting natural conversation dynamics.\n- Pauses: There are small pauses (e.g., 1 second before Speaker B's first turn and before Speaker B's last turn), which are natural and acceptable, not prolonged. There are no long, awkward silences.\n- Overlaps: There are two brief overlaps:\n    - `[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B:` overlaps Speaker A for 1 second (`[00:09 - 00:10]`). This is Speaker B interjecting a quick, relevant question (\"Wait, do you know if the weather will be good...?\") before Speaker A finishes their sentence. This is a common and natural conversational brief overlap, not prolonged or harmful.\n    - `[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker A:` overlaps Speaker B for 1 second (`[00:22 - 00:23]`). Speaker A adds a quick reminder about water while Speaker B is still finishing their thought about the shower. This is also a brief and natural interjection, not indicating a breakdown in turn-taking but rather an immediate thought from Speaker A.\nBoth overlaps are brief and contribute to the natural flow rather than hindering it. They do not appear to disrupt communication or cause confusion.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--451",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi! How are you?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Hi! I'm doing great. How are you?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm doing well. How do you feel about working out?\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker B: I love it! I lift weights pretty regularly.\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker A: Oh wow, that's great! Do you mind if I ask what you do?\n[00:16 - 00:23] Speaker B: I'm mostly focusing on lifting weights at the moment, but I have been really interested in learning more about Olympic weightlifting, especially\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker A: Olympic lifting sounds intense! Have you tried any specific exercises or routines so far?\n[00:28 - 00:36] Speaker B: Not yet, but I'm planning to start soon. I actually go to a Crossfit gym, which has some Olympic lifting equipment. Do you go to a gym?\n[00:36 - 00:40] Speaker A: Yes, I go to a Crossfit gym. Have you thought about powerlifting as well?\n[00:41 - 00:43] Speaker B: Yes, I really would love to. What about you?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and topic coherence throughout.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Greetings are reciprocated. Speaker A's question about working out is directly answered by Speaker B. Speaker A's follow-up questions about Speaker B's workout routine are pertinent and Speaker B provides relevant details about lifting weights and Olympic weightlifting. The conversation transitions smoothly from general interest in working out to specific types (Olympic lifting, Crossfit, powerlifting).\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The conversation maintains a clear topic focus on fitness and weightlifting. Speaker A introduces powerlifting, which is a coherent extension of the weightlifting discussion. Both speakers ask reciprocal questions (\"How are you?\", \"Do you go to a gym?\", \"What about you?\"), which keeps the conversation flowing and engaging. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant remarks.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction generally displays good fluency, with appropriate turn-taking and minimal pauses.\n1.  **Pauses:** There are small pauses of approximately 1 second between turns (e.g., [00:03 - 00:04], [00:15 - 00:16], [00:27 - 00:28], [00:40 - 00:41]). These are considered \"small pauses\" and are acceptable, contributing to natural conversation flow rather than hindering it.\n2.  **Overlaps:** There is one instance of an overlapping turn between Speaker B's turn ending at [00:23] and Speaker A's turn beginning at [00:21]. This means Speaker A started speaking while Speaker B was still finishing their sentence (\"especially\"). This overlap is approximately 2 seconds long. While the instructions state that \"overlapping turns are harmful\" if prolonged, this specific overlap is not excessively long (2 seconds) and does not appear to significantly disrupt the conversation or cause a breakdown in communication. Speaker B continues seamlessly in their next turn without indicating confusion or needing to repeat themselves. It is a brief overlap rather than an extended or prolonged one that would indicate a significant issue.\nOverall, the fluency is appropriate and natural, with only one minor, non-disruptive overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--173",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, Tom, did you enjoy your lunch?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Oh, don't mention it. It was terrible.\n[00:06 - 00:07] Speaker A: What's the matter?\n[00:07 - 00:15] Speaker B: The food station was as crowded as usual. I waited for 20 minutes for my sandwich, and when I finally got it the chicken was under cooked, and\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker A: Oh no, was it undercooked? That sounds awful. Did you report it to the staff?\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker B: I didn't, but I probably should have. Anyway, fast food is so popular in this district.\n[00:25 - 00:28] Speaker A: That's true, but you can't really blame the server for that.\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker B: Yes, I know. Anyway, how was your lunch, Catherine?\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker A: It was good. I brought lunch from home today.\n[00:35 - 00:41] Speaker B: You did? I thought you must feel right at home here with all the fast food restaurants around, just like in America.\n[00:41 - 00:52] Speaker A: Well, I personally don't like them because I don't believe they are healthy. By the way, you mentioned earlier that the chicken was underdone. Did you end up eating it, or did you throw it away?\n[00:52 - 00:58] Speaker B: I ended up throwing it away. You're right; the food may taste good, but it's usually high in calories, salt, and fat.\n[00:59 - 01:02] Speaker A: Exactly, and that's why I prefer to bring my own lunch.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits a high degree of response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's initial questions prompt Speaker B's complaints about a bad lunch, which are detailed and coherent. Speaker A's follow-up questions (e.g., \"What's the matter?\", \"Did you report it?\") are directly related to Speaker B's statements. When Speaker B shifts slightly to a broader observation (\"Anyway, fast food is so popular in this district\"), Speaker A responds, albeit with a slightly less direct connection (\"That's true, but you can't really blame the server for that.\") which could be interpreted as Speaker A attempting to clarify the source of the problem or defending potential targets of blame. However, this doesn't disrupt the flow or coherence significantly. Speaker B then smoothly transitions the topic (\"Anyway, how was your lunch, Catherine?\"). Later, Speaker A naturally reintroduces a previous detail (\"By the way, you mentioned earlier that the chicken was underdone. Did you end up eating it, or did you throw it away?\"), demonstrating good recall and maintaining the thread of the conversation. Both speakers consistently stay on topic or transition smoothly between related topics, ensuring logical flow throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the transitions are consistently quick and natural, often immediate or with only a 1-second pause, which is typical for a natural conversation. There are a couple of brief overlaps, specifically at `[00:14 - 00:19]` where Speaker A starts speaking just as Speaker B is finishing a thought, and at `[00:28 - 00:31]` where Speaker B starts speaking as Speaker A concludes. These overlaps are very short (around 1 second or less) and do not indicate a disruption or struggle for turns. Instead, they contribute to the natural, dynamic feel of the conversation, suggesting active listening and engagement rather than interruptions or turn-taking issues. There are no extended overlaps that would impede understanding or indicate poor conversational management.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--38012",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: So, what do you think about my power to change the music?\n[00:03 - 00:13] Speaker B: Well, it's certainly unique! I can't say that I've ever heard of anyone else having that ability. It must be really handy, being able to just adjust the music to whatever mood you're in, especially\n[00:12 - 00:22] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but it just occurred to me—do you ever find it difficult to pick the right music when you're feeling conflicted? Like, when you're not sure what mood you're in?\n[00:23 - 00:36] Speaker B: Oh, absolutely. That's actually one of the tricky parts. Sometimes I just need to focus and classical helps me do that. Other times I want to feel more energized and rock does the trick. But there are moments when I struggle to decide what would actually help.\n[00:36 - 00:41] Speaker A: That makes sense. It must be nice to have that control over your environment, though.\n[00:42 - 00:49] Speaker B: It definitely has its perks! But it can also be a bit overwhelming at times, trying to decide what kind of music I want to listen to.\n[00:49 - 00:57] Speaker A: Yeah, I can imagine that could be tough. But overall, do you think it's a good thing or a bad thing? Having this power, I mean.\n[00:57 - 01:16] Speaker B: You know, I'm not really sure. It's hard to say. On one hand, it's great because like I said, it allows me to control my environment and how I'm feeling. But on the other hand, sometimes I just wish things were simpler and there was only one type of music playing all the time! Ha ha, can you imagine? Just one genre of music playing everywhere we go, no\n[01:15 - 01:25] Speaker A: Actually, that would drive me crazy! I can't function without variety—I'd probably start tuning out music altogether if it was just one genre all the time.\n[01:25 - 01:30] Speaker B: Yeah, me too. So I guess in the end, it's a good thing? Having this power to change the music, I mean?\n[01:30 - 01:34] Speaker A: Yeah, I think so! It's definitely a useful power to have.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker B consistently answers Speaker A's questions, elaborating on the unique ability to change music, its perks, and its challenges. Speaker A, in turn, acknowledges Speaker B's points and poses relevant follow-up questions that naturally progress the conversation (e.g., from the general concept to challenges, then to an overall evaluation). There are no instances of irrelevant responses or abrupt topic shifts. The flow from discussing the power itself, to the difficulties of using it, to its overall benefit, and finally to a humorous hypothetical scenario and back to the main question, shows strong logical consistency and coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two brief overlaps detected:\n1.  **[00:12 - 00:13]**: Speaker A starts speaking (at 00:12) while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence (at 00:13). Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to cut in,\" which makes the overlap natural and polite, rather than disruptive. This is a very brief, acceptable overlap.\n2.  **[01:15 - 01:16]**: Speaker A starts speaking (at 01:15) while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence (at 01:16). This is also a brief, 1-second overlap. Speaker B's sentence ends with \"no,\" implying a potential continuation, which is a common point for natural interjections in conversation.\nBoth overlaps are short (1 second) and do not impede understanding or feel unnatural. There are a couple of small 1-second pauses (e.g., 00:22-00:23, 00:41-00:42), which are standard and appropriate in conversational turns and do not constitute \"long pauses.\" The pacing of the dialogue feels very natural and engaging.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--32224",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey Sarah! I'm so glad you could join me today.\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: Of course, Noe! It's always a pleasure to spend time with you. So, what have you been up to lately?\n[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A: Actually, I just finished up some work for a client and now I'm just relaxing for the rest of the day.\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker B: That sounds great! You deserve a break after working so hard.\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker A: Thanks, Sarah. I really appreciate your support.\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B: Anytime, Noe. So, what do you want to do now that you have some free time?\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker A: You know, I was just thinking—since it's such nice weather outside, maybe we could go for a walk or something?\n[00:31 - 00:33] Speaker B: That sounds like a great idea! Let's go!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building coherently on the topic.\n- Speaker B's initial question \"So, what have you been up to lately?\" directly follows the pleasantries, naturally initiating conversation.\n- Speaker A's response about finishing work is a direct and relevant answer.\n- Speaker B's empathetic comment (\"You deserve a break...\") is a supportive and relevant follow-up.\n- Speaker A's appreciation is a direct response to B's support.\n- Speaker B's transition (\"So, what do you want to do now that you have some free time?\") logically moves the conversation forward based on A's earlier statement about relaxing.\n- Speaker A's suggestion for a walk is a direct and relevant answer to B's question.\n- Speaker B's enthusiastic agreement concludes the interaction smoothly.\nThere are no instances of topic drift, illogical statements, or responses that are out of context. The conversation flows very naturally and is easy to follow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good, with one minor point to note.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth and natural conversational pace.\n- There is one instance of overlap: `[00:07 - 00:13] Speaker A:` starts while `[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B:` is still speaking. This means Speaker A begins their turn at 00:07, and Speaker B finishes at 00:09, resulting in a 2-second overlap. Speaker A starts answering the question \"what have you been up to lately?\" slightly before Speaker B finishes articulating it. While this is an overlap, it is brief (2 seconds) and can be considered natural in an eager or anticipatory conversational style, rather than a prolonged or disruptive interjection. The prompt states that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this falls into that category. It does not appear to hinder the flow or comprehension of the dialogue. All other turns are clean with no indicated overlaps or pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--116",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: What else, Ma'am?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: No, thanks. My husband said, We'd like to pay now.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: Let me show you to the cashier's. It's 905 yuan in total.\n[00:09 - 00:11] Speaker B: What? Where does that five yuan come\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but it's a service charge.\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: Oh, I see. But I only have 900 in cash here. Can you let it go for 900 yuan?\n[00:19 - 00:22] Speaker A: Sorry, but we can't do that. It's store's rule.\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker B: My husband said he had a credit card. Do you accept all major\n[00:25 - 00:27] Speaker A: Yes, we do accept credit cards.\n[00:28 - 00:29] Speaker B: Great. Here it is.\n[00:29 - 00:33] Speaker A: Here is the receipt. Wanna have it wrapped, Ma'am?\n[00:33 - 00:35] Speaker B: Yes, please. Thank you very much.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in the dialogue demonstrate strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one.\n- Speaker B's \"No, thanks. My husband said, We'd like to pay now\" directly answers Speaker A's \"What else, Ma'am?\" and transitions the topic smoothly to payment.\n- Speaker A's response (\"Let me show you to the cashier's. It's 905 yuan in total.\") is a direct and logical next step following the request to pay.\n- Speaker B's query (\"What? Where does that five yuan come\") is a relevant question about the stated total.\n- Speaker A's explanation (\"Sorry to interrupt, but it's a service charge.\") directly answers the query.\n- Speaker B then logically follows up with a problem related to the amount (\"But I only have 900 in cash here. Can you let it go for 900 yuan?\").\n- Speaker A's refusal (\"Sorry, but we can't do that. It's store's rule.\") is a clear and consistent response.\n- Speaker B's next question (\"Do you accept all major\") is a natural pivot to an alternative payment method.\n- Speaker A confirms (\"Yes, we do accept credit cards.\").\n- The dialogue concludes with the transaction completion and a polite offer/acceptance of wrapping.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses, non-sequiturs, or confusion regarding the topic. The conversation flows naturally and efficiently.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction generally demonstrates good fluency with only minor, acceptable deviations.\n- **Pauses:** All pauses between speaker turns are brief (1 second or less), which are well within acceptable limits and do not disrupt the flow. There are no prolonged pauses.\n- **Overlaps:**\n    - There is an overlap between [00:09 - 00:11] (Speaker B) and [00:09 - 00:13] (Speaker A). This is a 2-second overlap where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still formulating their question. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which mitigates the disruptiveness. This type of overlap, where a speaker quickly jumps in to clarify or answer an anticipated question, can sometimes be natural and efficient, especially when the content is clear. It does not lead to confusion or breakdown in communication.\n    - There is another overlap between [00:23 - 00:26] (Speaker B) and [00:25 - 00:27] (Speaker A). This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A clearly anticipates Speaker B's question (\"Do you accept all major [credit cards]?\") and provides a quick, affirmative answer. This is a very common and natural form of collaborative turn-taking, indicating active listening and responsiveness rather than a harmful interruption.\n\nWhile overlaps are present, they are not prolonged to the extent of being \"harmful\" as defined by the criteria. They do not cause significant issues in understanding or interaction flow. The conversation remains clear and effective.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--181",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hello, three-five.\n[00:02 - 00:02] Speaker B: Is that Anne?\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker A: I'm sorry, I'm very tired. I'm going to bed early. I didn't have good time, and I don't really want to talk about\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker B: Wait, what do you mean you didn't have a good time? We laughed and talked all night last time.\n[00:15 - 00:21] Speaker A: It was hardly all night. And I recall it was you doing all the laughing at your own jokes.\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker B: That's not fair. We had fun. Give me a second chance. Can we meet tomorrow night for drinks at the pub?\n[00:27 - 00:36] Speaker A: No, I'm sorry. I'm going to meet some friends tomorrow evening. And I'm too tired now. I have to go to sleep. Goodbye.\n[00:37 - 00:41] Speaker B: But Anne... You mentioned you didn't have a good time earlier. Can you tell me what went wrong?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A's initial response, while seemingly abrupt, directly conveys their current state and disinterest, which is a relevant response to the initiation of the call, even if not directly answering \"Is that Anne?\" (though it implicitly suggests it is Anne based on subsequent context). Speaker B immediately picks up on Speaker A's negative sentiment (\"didn't have a good time\") and challenges it, maintaining topic coherence. Speaker A's subsequent replies directly address Speaker B's points and recollections, engaging in the conflict. Speaker B's attempt to reconcile and propose a new meeting is a logical next step in the interaction, and Speaker A's refusal is consistent with their stated tiredness and disinterest. Finally, Speaker B's last attempt to understand what went wrong directly circles back to the core issue raised by Speaker A. The conversation flows naturally from an initial call to a conflict, an attempt at reconciliation, and a final attempt to understand. There are no sudden topic shifts or irrelevant responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. The timestamps indicate clear, sequential turns with no extended overlaps. There are only very brief pauses (1 second or less) between turns, which are natural in conversation and fall within the \"acceptable small pauses\" category. There are no prolonged pauses that would hinder the flow of the conversation or indicate difficulty in turn-taking. The rhythm of the dialogue appears natural and unforced.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--194",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I want to mail this package to Korea.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: How would you like to send it?\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker A: First class, please.\n[00:06 - 00:11] Speaker B: It will cost you 20 pounds because your package is too heavy. It will take 2 days to reach its\n[00:10 - 00:14] Speaker A: 20 pounds? That seems a bit steep. Is there a cheaper way to send it?\n[00:15 - 00:25] Speaker B: Yes, there is. It's the package post way, but it will take you 10 days longer than the first class to get there. Oh, by the way, I didn't finish earlier—it will take 2 days to get there with first class.\n[00:26 - 00:27] Speaker A: Got it. Thanks for clarifying!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or follows up on the previous one, maintaining a clear conversational flow about mailing a package.\n- Speaker B's initial question \"How would you like to send it?\" is a direct and logical follow-up to Speaker A's intent to mail a package.\n- Speaker B's explanation of cost and delivery time for \"first class\" is directly relevant to Speaker A's choice.\n- Speaker A's question \"Is there a cheaper way to send it?\" is a logical response to the perceived high cost.\n- Speaker B's subsequent explanation of the \"package post way\" and its details, including clarifying the earlier incomplete statement about first-class delivery time, demonstrates excellent topic coherence and helpfulness.\n- Speaker A's final \"Got it. Thanks for clarifying!\" shows understanding and appreciation, concluding the sub-topic logically.\nThere are no instances of irrelevance, logical inconsistencies, or abrupt topic shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\n- **Pauses:** All pauses between turns are short (approximately 1 second, e.g., `[00:02-00:03]` following `[00:00-00:02]`, `[00:06]` following `[00:05]`, `[00:15]` following `[00:14]`, `[00:26]` following `[00:25]`). These are natural and do not disrupt the flow of conversation.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap identified: `[00:10 - 00:11]` where Speaker A begins speaking (`20 pounds? That seems a bit steep...`) while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence (`...to reach its`). This is a 1-second overlap. The instructions state, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" This 1-second overlap is brief and natural, indicative of an engaged listener reacting quickly, especially given that Speaker B's sentence was cut off. It does not appear to be prolonged or harmful to the conversation's flow.\nOverall, the pacing is natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--61244",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hi there! I'm looking for a large boat that will be the envy of everyone on the lake.\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: We've got just the thing. Come with me and I'll show you our largest model, which\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: Oh, before we go, can you give me a ballpark figure of how much it might cost?\n[00:14 - 00:24] Speaker B: Sure, it's priced at $100,000. But let me show you the boat first—it's right this way. As you can see, it's quite a bit larger than our other models. It has all the bells and whistles too.\n[00:25 - 00:35] Speaker A: Wow, it's gorgeous! $100,000 is a bit out of my price range though. Do you have any other boats that are similar in size but not as expensive?\n[00:35 - 00:41] Speaker B: We have a few other models that are slightly smaller, but they're still quite large. They start at $80,000.\n[00:42 - 00:45] Speaker A: I see. I'll think about it. Thanks for your help.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining topic coherence throughout the conversation.\n- Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's request for a \"large boat.\"\n- Speaker A's interjection about cost is a relevant and common pre-sales question.\n- Speaker B provides the price and then continues to describe the boat, staying on topic.\n- Speaker A's follow-up request for similar but less expensive options is a natural progression based on their budget constraint, while still keeping the \"large boat\" desire.\n- Speaker B accurately provides relevant alternatives.\n- Speaker A's concluding remark is appropriate for ending the interaction.\nThere are no instances of off-topic remarks or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one brief overlap detected between Speaker B's turn ending at [00:09] and Speaker A's turn starting at [00:08]. This overlap lasts approximately 1 second (\"...which\" overlapped by \"Oh, before we go...\").\nWhile it is an overlapping turn where Speaker A interjects before Speaker B fully finishes their sentence, it is brief and does not appear to cause any disruption or miscommunication. Such brief interjections are common in natural conversation, especially when a speaker has an immediate question or thought. The prompt states that \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and this falls into that category. There are no long pauses between turns. Overall, the interaction flows smoothly despite this minor overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--209",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What are you doing?\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: I'm just looking at this map of the world. I'm preparing for a geography class.\n[00:06 - 00:08] Speaker A: There are no countries marked on the map.\n[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker B: No, there aren't. this map just shows the geographical features. Look at the Himalayan plateau with the highest peaks in the world, which\n[00:14 - 00:22] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I was wondering, do you also cover how these features impact the local climate in your class?\n[00:22 - 00:31] Speaker B: Yes, we do. The mountains, especially the Himalayas, play a significant role in influencing the climate. But I was about to mention that these peaks are the highest in the world and they\n[00:30 - 00:39] Speaker A: Right, and speaking of high peaks, I find it incredible how millions of years of volcanic activity have created mountains thousands of metres tall.\n[00:40 - 00:44] Speaker B: Exactly, and rivers have created deep valleys and canyons like the Grand Canyon.\n[00:45 - 00:48] Speaker A: The oceans and landscapes all influence our climate.\n[00:48 - 00:52] Speaker B: Absolutely, and it's fascinating how interconnected everything is.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one, maintaining a coherent conversation flow.\n\n*   Speaker B's initial response (0:01-0:05) directly answers A's question.\n*   Speaker A's observation (0:06-0:08) about the map is a direct follow-up.\n*   Speaker B's explanation (0:08-0:15) clarifies the map's purpose and introduces geographical features, setting the stage for further discussion.\n*   Speaker A's interruption (0:14-0:22), while an interruption in fluency, introduces a relevant related topic (climate impact of features) that B was discussing.\n*   Speaker B answers A's question and then attempts to return to their original point (0:22-0:31), demonstrating logical progression.\n*   Speaker A's second interruption (0:30-0:39) also stays on topic, building on the \"high peaks\" idea to discuss mountain formation. While it cuts B off, the content is relevant.\n*   Speaker B's subsequent turn (0:40-0:44) smoothly picks up from A's point and adds another related example of geological features.\n*   Speaker A's final point (0:45-0:48) broadens the scope back to climate influence, tying back to an earlier discussion point.\n*   Speaker B's concluding remark (0:48-0:52) provides a relevant summary thought.\n\nThe topic shifts are natural and progressive, moving from map details to geographical features, their impact on climate, their formation, and the interconnectedness of these elements. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or confusing shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction generally flows well with natural turn-taking, but there are two instances of brief overlaps where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B.\n\n*   **[00:14 - 00:22] Speaker A** interrupts **[00:08 - 00:15] Speaker B**. The overlap is brief (1 second). Speaker A explicitly apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), indicating awareness and politeness, which mitigates the impact on fluency. This is a brief and acknowledged interruption.\n*   **[00:30 - 00:39] Speaker A** interrupts **[00:22 - 00:31] Speaker B** again. This overlap is also brief (1 second). Speaker A does not apologize this time, and Speaker B is cut off mid-sentence for the second time. While brief, repeated interruptions, especially when the speaker is cut off mid-thought, slightly detract from perfect fluency.\n\nHowever, the prompt states that \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\" Both overlaps are indeed very brief (1 second each) and do not constitute \"extended overlaps\" or \"prolonged\" periods of talking over each other. There are no long pauses between turns. The overall pace of the conversation is natural and engaging. Despite the minor interruptions, the flow is not significantly hampered, and the conversation progresses smoothly.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--125159",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Hey, thanks for lending me that money the other day. I really appreciate it.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker B: No problem, man. I'm just glad I could help you out when\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: Actually, before I forget, here's the money I owed you. I wanted to make sure I paid you back as soon as possible.\n[00:15 - 00:17] Speaker B: Thanks, Tavian. I really appreciate it.\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker A: No problem, man. Like I said, I owed you one and wanted to make sure I repaid my debt as soon as I could.\n[00:23 - 00:29] Speaker B: Speaking of which, do you think you might need help with anything else soon? I know things have been a bit tight lately.\n[00:29 - 00:38] Speaker A: I appreciate the offer, but I think I'm good for now. But seriously, if you ever need anything, don't hesitate to let me know.\n[00:38 - 00:40] Speaker B: Will do. Thanks again, man.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence. Speaker A expresses gratitude, Speaker B responds, Speaker A then pays back the money, Speaker B thanks them, Speaker A acknowledges, and Speaker B then naturally transitions to offering further help based on the previous context (\"Speaking of which... I know things have been a bit tight lately\"). Speaker A politely declines but reciprocates the offer of help, which Speaker B acknowledges. There are no irrelevant tangents or abrupt topic shifts. The dialogue flows smoothly from one related point to the next, demonstrating clear understanding and appropriate responses from both participants.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is also excellent. There are no long pauses that disrupt the flow of conversation. The brief overlaps observed ([00:07 - 00:08] where Speaker A starts while B is finishing, and [00:23 - 00:24] where Speaker B starts while A is finishing) are each approximately one second. As per the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" These types of short overlaps are very common in natural, spontaneous conversation and often indicate active listening and engagement rather than being harmful or disruptive. They do not impede understanding or the conversational flow in this transcript.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--35",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Well, I'll see you later, Mrs. Todd. My wife is waiting for me to take her shopping.\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker B: I understand. There's a lot to get done at weekends, especially when you two work and the children are at that\n[00:10 - 00:22] Speaker A: Oh, speaking of the kids, we were actually thinking of bringing them over to meet you sometime soon. Jane and I have been talking about visiting you. So when I saw you in the garden, I decided to come over and say hello.\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker B: I'm glad you did. In fact, I should have called on you first, since you have newly moved into the\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker A: Oh, no worries at all! By the way, do you need anything from the store?\n[00:32 - 00:35] Speaker B: No, but thanks for the offer. And thank you for coming over.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency.\n- Speaker B's initial response (00:05-00:11) acknowledges Speaker A's need to leave for shopping, demonstrating understanding.\n- Speaker A's follow-up (00:10-00:22) naturally transitions from a casual goodbye to explaining the desire for future interaction and the reason for the current approach, building on the neighborly context.\n- Speaker B's reply (00:23-00:28) shows warmth and politeness, acknowledging Speaker A's initiative and expressing regret for not initiating contact first, which is highly relevant to the new neighbor dynamic.\n- Speaker A's quick dismissal of B's apologies and the immediate offer to help with shopping (00:27-00:31) is a very natural and relevant gesture between neighbors, especially when one is going to the store.\n- Speaker B's polite refusal and thanks (00:32-00:35) provides a natural closing to the brief interaction.\nEach turn logically follows the previous one, and the topics are coherent within the context of a spontaneous neighborly chat.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns.\n- There are two brief overlaps:\n    - `[00:10 - 00:11]` (Speaker A overlaps Speaker B by 1 second): Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is finishing their sentence. This is a common and acceptable brief overlap, often indicating active listening or eagerness to contribute, not a disruptive extended overlap.\n    - `[00:27 - 00:28]` (Speaker A overlaps Speaker B by 1 second): Similar to the first, Speaker A begins their turn as Speaker B concludes theirs. This is also a brief and acceptable overlap.\nThese overlaps are short and do not hinder the flow or understanding of the conversation. They fall under the \"brief overlaps... are acceptable\" category.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--137588",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Thank you so much for agreeing to teach me, ma'am. I'm really excited to get started.\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker B: Of course, it's my pleasure. Why don't we start by discussing your musical background? What made you decide to pursue the violin?\n[00:12 - 00:27] Speaker A: Well, I've been playing the violin since I was a little girl. It's always been my dream to play professionally, but until recently, I never had the opportunity to pursue it full-time. Now that I'm older, I finally have the chance to dedicate more\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker B: That's wonderful! Before we go any further, I'm curious—what changed recently that allowed you to pursue it full-time?\n[00:33 - 00:41] Speaker A: I actually changed careers and now have more flexibility with my schedule, which has given me the time I need to focus on my passion.\n[00:42 - 00:50] Speaker B: Thank you, Nikolas. It's nice to meet someone with such passion for music. I can already tell that you have a lot of potential. Let's get started then, shall we?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial question about musical background is directly addressed by Speaker A. Speaker B then actively listens and asks a relevant follow-up question based on Speaker A's previous statement (\"pursue it full-time\"). Speaker A's response to this follow-up is also direct and provides the requested information. Finally, Speaker B acknowledges Speaker A's response, provides positive affirmation, and smoothly transitions to the next logical step in the lesson. The conversation maintains a clear topic (starting a violin lesson and discussing the student's background/motivation) throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates good fluency. There are no extended overlaps; the brief overlap between Speaker A at [00:26 - 00:27] and Speaker B at [00:26 - 00:32] is very short (approximately 1 second) and appears natural, indicating eager engagement rather than interruption. Similarly, there are no long pauses between turns. The pauses observed (e.g., 1 second between 0:32 and 0:33, and between 0:41 and 0:42) are brief and typical of natural conversational turn-taking, allowing for processing and response.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--684",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: My favorite cast member in Pride and Prejudice is Colin Firth.\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: I know! He's such a great actor! I love him in King's Speech.\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: That's a great movie too! Colin Firth is just awesome!\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker B: Yeah, he's a total hunk!\n[00:14 - 00:18] Speaker A: What's your favorite cast member in the Harry Potter movies?\n[00:18 - 00:24] Speaker B: Tough call. There are so many great actors in those movies. But if I had to pick one, it would be Daniel Radcliffe.\n[00:25 - 00:32] Speaker A: Yeah, I feel the same! Have you ever seen A Clockwork Orange? He's the main character in that movie, and\n[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker B: Wait, are you sure? I thought Daniel Radcliffe wasn't in A Clockwork Orange. That movie is quite old.\n[00:37 - 00:54] Speaker A: Oh, you're right. I mixed it up with something else. Anyway, have you seen A Clockwork Orange? It's about Alex, an anarchist teenager, and he kidnaps an innocent woman. And I just love his character. His voice is so smooth, and his accent. It's perfect!\n[00:54 - 00:58] Speaker B: I'll have to check it out! So do you have any upcoming movies you're excited about?\n[00:58 - 01:06] Speaker A: Actually, yes! I'm really looking forward to the new sci-fi film coming out next month. The trailer looks amazing, and the cast is\n[01:06 - 01:12] Speaker B: Oh, I think I know which one you're talking about! Is it the one with the futuristic city and the AI robots?\n[01:12 - 01:18] Speaker A: Yes, that's the one! The visuals are stunning, and I can't wait to see how the story unfolds.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates good response relevance and logical consistency overall. Speakers generally respond directly to each other's statements and questions, maintaining a coherent topic flow.\n\n- **Initial exchanges (00:00 - 00:14):** The conversation about Colin Firth is perfectly relevant, with Speaker B building on Speaker A's preference and Speaker A reinforcing the sentiment.\n- **Transition and Harry Potter (00:14 - 00:24):** Speaker A initiates a natural topic shift to Harry Potter actors, and Speaker B provides a direct, well-reasoned answer.\n- **A Clockwork Orange confusion (00:25 - 00:54):** This is the only part where a logical inconsistency arises. Speaker A incorrectly attributes a role in 'A Clockwork Orange' to Daniel Radcliffe. Speaker B's immediate interjection (00:31) questioning this is highly relevant and corrective. Speaker A then acknowledges the mistake (\"Oh, you're right. I mixed it up with something else.\"). However, Speaker A then continues to describe 'A Clockwork Orange' and praises \"his character\" (Alex) and \"His voice is so smooth, and his accent.\" which, while relevant to the movie, could still be misconstrued as referring to Radcliffe's (non-existent) performance or is just an awkward way to praise the actual actor after the previous factual error. It creates a slight ambiguity in whether Speaker A has fully disentangled the actor from the movie. Despite this minor muddle in Speaker A's recovery, the overall conversation quickly regains coherence.\n- **Topic shift and upcoming movies (00:54 - 01:18):** Speaker B smoothly transitions to a new, but related, topic about upcoming movies, and Speaker A provides relevant details. Speaker B shows active listening and engagement by guessing the movie.\n\nWhile Speaker A's factual error and slightly muddled recovery regarding 'A Clockwork Orange' is a minor logical inconsistency, it is quickly addressed and does not significantly disrupt the conversation's flow or understanding. The interaction remains largely coherent and relevant.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- **Pauses:** There are no instances of long or prolonged pauses between speaker turns. Responses are generally immediate or have very brief, natural hesitations.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one instance of a brief overlap:\n    - **[00:31 - 00:37] Speaker B:** Speaker B interjects at 00:31 while Speaker A is still speaking (ending at 00:32), resulting in a 1-second overlap. This is a brief and functional overlap, as Speaker B is interjecting to correct a factual error or seek clarification, which is a common and natural occurrence in fluid conversation. It does not disrupt the conversation or indicate a lack of turn-taking ability.\nOverall, the turn-taking is smooth and natural, contributing to high interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--344",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Is your city a historical place?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Not really. 200 years ago, it was just a small insignificant village.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker A: How did it grow into such a large place?\n[00:10 - 00:19] Speaker B: Large deposits of coal were found nearby and so many industries located themselves here. The village quickly grew into a key industrial center, attracting\n[00:18 - 00:26] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but when you say \"key industrial,\" do you mean it became a major hub for manufacturing or something else?\n[00:26 - 00:34] Speaker B: Yes, exactly. It became a major hub for manufacturing and trade. As the city grew, it must have absorbed many villages nearby.\n[00:34 - 00:43] Speaker A: That makes sense. By the way, you mentioned the city grew into a key industrial center, but what about the names of those villages? Did they disappear?\n[00:43 - 00:47] Speaker B: The names of those villages survive as the names of parts of the city.\n[00:47 - 00:52] Speaker A: I see. Are there any buildings more than 200 years old in your city?\n[00:52 - 01:02] Speaker B: Oh, yes. Several of the buildings from the villages still survive. Many of them were inns for travelers and today survive as pubs. There was a castle near one village, so our city has a castle too.\n[01:03 - 01:07] Speaker A: A castle? That sounds fascinating! Is it still in good condition?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn is logically consistent with the preceding utterance, and the topic of the city's history and development is coherently maintained throughout.\n\n*   Speaker A's initial question about the city's historical nature sets the topic.\n*   Speaker B's response is direct and informative, establishing that the city grew from a small village.\n*   Speaker A's subsequent questions (`How did it grow...?`, `what about the names of those villages?`, `Are there any buildings more than 200 years old...?`) are all logical follow-ups that delve deeper into the city's past, directly relating to information Speaker B has provided or implied.\n*   The interjection by Speaker A (\"Sorry to jump in, but when you say 'key industrial,' do you mean...\") is a highly relevant clarification that ensures shared understanding and helps Speaker B elaborate on a specific point.\n*   Speaker B's answers are always direct, provide specific details, and advance the conversation about the city's transformation from a village to an industrial center, its absorbed villages, and its surviving historical structures, including the castle.\n*   The final question about the castle's condition is a perfect example of a relevant follow-up, showing engagement with the details provided by Speaker B.\n\nThere are no instances of topic shifts that feel abrupt or out of place; instead, the conversation progresses naturally from one historical aspect to another.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n\n*   **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap observed at `[00:18 - 00:26]` where Speaker A interjects with \"Sorry to jump in...\" while Speaker B is still speaking (`[00:10 - 00:19]`). This overlap is only 1 second long (A starts at 00:18, B ends at 00:19) and is explicitly framed as an interruption for clarification, which is a very natural and acceptable part of fluent conversation, especially when seeking immediate understanding. It is not prolonged or disruptive.\n*   **Pauses:** Most turns begin immediately after the previous speaker finishes (e.g., A at 00:26, B at 00:34, A at 00:43, B at 00:47, A at 00:52, B at 01:02). There are two instances of a 1-second pause (`[00:01 - 00:02]` and `[01:02 - 01:03]`), which are considered \"small pauses\" and are perfectly natural in conversation, indicating processing time or a slight beat before responding. There are no long or awkward pauses that would hinder the flow.\n\nThe pacing of the dialogue feels natural and conversational, demonstrating strong interactional fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--153",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I want to get a bite to eat.\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: What are you thinking of getting?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker A: I have no idea what I might be\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: Have you considered getting something light, like a salad? Sometimes when I'm undecided, I go for something simple.\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker A: That's an idea, but I wouldn't mind getting some Chinese food.\n[00:15 - 00:17] Speaker B: Where are you going to get your Chinese food from?\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker A: I'm not sure. When I want Chinese food, I go to a nearby\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in—do you prefer a place with quick service or more of a sit-down experience?\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: Quick service usually. I was about to say Panda Express. Do they do a good job on the food?\n[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker B: The food isn't bad there.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining clear topic coherence throughout the conversation.\n- **Logical Consistency:**\n    - Speaker B's initial question (\"What are you thinking of getting?\") is a direct and logical follow-up to Speaker A's opening statement (\"I want to get a bite to eat.\").\n    - Speaker B's suggestion of salad is a relevant response to Speaker A's indecision (\"I have no idea what I might be\").\n    - Speaker B's question about the source of Chinese food logically follows Speaker A's preference for Chinese food.\n    - Speaker B's interjection about service type (\"quick service or more of a sit-down experience?\") is directly relevant to Speaker A's unstated thought about where to get Chinese food (\"I'm not sure. When I want Chinese food, I go to a nearby\"). It anticipates Speaker A's need for a specific recommendation.\n    - Speaker A's question about Panda Express's food quality is highly relevant to the preceding discussion about getting Chinese food from Panda Express.\n    - Speaker B's final response (\"The food isn't bad there.\") directly answers Speaker A's question.\n- **Topic Coherence:** The conversation consistently stays on the topic of \"getting food,\" narrowing down to \"Chinese food,\" and then specifically \"Panda Express.\" There are no irrelevant tangents or abrupt shifts in subject matter. Every turn contributes to the progression of finding a suitable meal.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe dialogue displays good interactional fluency, with minor, acceptable overlaps and no prolonged pauses.\n- **Extended Overlaps:** There are two instances of overlapping speech:\n    - [0:03 - 0:05] Speaker A: I have no idea what I might be\n    - [0:04 - 0:10] Speaker B: Have you considered getting something light, like a salad? Sometimes when I'm undecided, I go for something simple.\n    This overlap, while present, is short and functional. Speaker B begins their suggestion before Speaker A fully completes their sentence, which is a common and natural occurrence in conversation, especially when one speaker is expressing indecision and the other is offering a solution or idea. It indicates active listening and eagerness to contribute rather than an interruption.\n\n    - [0:17 - 0:22] Speaker A: I'm not sure. When I want Chinese food, I go to a nearby\n    - [0:21 - 0:25] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in—do you prefer a place with quick service or more of a sit-down experience?\n    This overlap is explicitly acknowledged by Speaker B with \"Sorry to jump in.\" This indicates a conscious but brief interruption to clarify or guide the conversation, which is natural. The overlap duration is short, and Speaker B's interjection is relevant to Speaker A's ongoing thought. It does not hinder comprehension or disrupt the flow significantly.\n- **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions between turns are quick and natural, maintaining a smooth conversational rhythm. The longest gap observed is generally around 1-2 seconds, which is perfectly acceptable and allows for natural processing.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--415",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I've been meaning to watch some good movies, any recommendations?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Well, what kinds of movies do you like?\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker A: I haven't seen many films, so I don't have a preference yet.\n[00:11 - 00:14] Speaker B: I can suggest you a few good movies. Have you seen Birdman?\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker A: I haven't. What's it about?\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: It's a thriller/comedy film that came out recently. It has really good performances and\n[00:22 - 00:28] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but how recent is it? I'm curious about how up-to-date the recommendations are.\n[00:29 - 00:36] Speaker B: It came out a few years ago, but it's still very relevant. However, I haven't mentioned that Gone Girl and Whiplash are also excellent choices\n[00:34 - 00:40] Speaker A: Gone Girl and Whiplash? I've heard those names before. Could you tell me a bit more about them?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B's initial clarifying question about preferences (0:04) is logical and helpful for providing relevant recommendations. Speaker B's suggestion of \"Birdman\" and subsequent description (0:11-0:22) directly addresses Speaker A's request. Speaker A's interruption to ask about recency (0:22) is also relevant, as it refines their criteria for recommendations. Speaker B's response about recency (0:29) and then the introduction of \"Gone Girl\" and \"Whiplash\" (0:30-0:36) is a natural conversational flow, expanding on the topic of movie recommendations. Speaker A's final question (0:34-0:40) picking up on the newly introduced movies demonstrates excellent topic coherence. There are no instances of irrelevant or illogical responses; the conversation progresses smoothly and purposefully.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between turns. The turn-taking is generally smooth, with immediate responses or brief, acceptable pauses (e.g., 1-second pause at 0:04, 0:07, 0:11, 0:29). There is an explicit \"Sorry to jump in\" at 0:22, which is a natural conversational filler acknowledging an interruption, showing natural speaker behavior. The most notable point is the overlap between 0:34 and 0:36, where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. However, this is a very common and natural form of \"latching\" or \"collaborative overlap\" where Speaker A is reacting directly to the new movie titles (\"Gone Girl and Whiplash\") as Speaker B introduces them. This overlap does not cause confusion or disruption; instead, it indicates active listening and engagement. It is not a prolonged, disruptive overlap, but rather a characteristic of natural, dynamic conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--446",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, how are you doing?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: I'm doing great! How are you?\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker A: I'm doing very well. I like to garden a lot. Do you like to garden?\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: Yeah, I love to garden. What kind of flowers do you like?\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker A: I like roses and gardenias. They are really pretty. What about you?\n[00:18 - 00:22] Speaker B: My favorite flowers are tulips and lilacs. It's really nice to sit and smell them.\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker A: I've been wanting to plant tulips. They really brighten up\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but have you considered the soil type in your garden? Tulips need well-drained soil.\n[00:31 - 00:38] Speaker A: That's a good point. I haven't checked that yet. I also love lilacs, but they always seem to\n[00:37 - 00:43] Speaker B: I know what you mean! Have you tried changing the spot where you plant them? Sometimes a different location can make a big difference.\n[00:44 - 00:45] Speaker A: Oh, that sucks!\n[00:45 - 00:47] Speaker B: Yeah, it's hard to get them to live!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence. The conversation flows naturally from greetings to shared interests (gardening), then to specific preferences (flowers), and subsequently to problems and solutions related to those preferences. Speaker B's interruptions at [00:25 - 00:31] and [00:37 - 00:43] are highly relevant, offering practical advice directly related to Speaker A's previous statements or implied difficulties (planting tulips, difficulty with lilacs). Speaker A's \"That's a good point\" acknowledges the advice, and while \"Oh, that sucks!\" at [00:44 - 00:45] might seem slightly negative after advice, Speaker B's follow-up \"Yeah, it's hard to get them to live!\" shows that B correctly interpreted it as A commiserating with the difficulty of growing lilacs, maintaining coherence. The interaction stays focused on gardening and related challenges/solutions.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a smooth and natural conversational rhythm. There are two instances of overlapping speech:\n1.  At [00:25 - 00:31], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. However, Speaker B immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\") and the interruption is brief and constructive, adding important, relevant information about soil type for tulips. This is a common and natural part of dynamic conversation.\n2.  At [00:37 - 00:43], Speaker B again interjects while Speaker A is speaking. This overlap is also brief, and Speaker B starts with \"I know what you mean!\", demonstrating understanding and immediately offering relevant advice related to the difficulty of growing lilacs. This is also a natural conversational turn, indicating active listening and engagement rather than disruption.\nBoth overlaps are brief, purposeful, and handled gracefully, contributing to the natural flow rather than hindering it.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--499",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hi! I'm having a hard time deciding on a new lawn for my house. Which do you think is best?\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B: So it sounds like you want to get your lawn reseeded. I'd recommend the Bermuda variety. It will grow very quickly and look very lush and\n[00:12 - 00:18] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but I'm also considering an artificial lawn. Can you help me choose one?\n[00:18 - 00:26] Speaker B: I'd suggest the synthetic variety. I know you will probably want to add some more plants and stuff to the lawn after it has been laid, but for the first few weeks, it\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker A: Hold on, when you say \"synthetic variety,\" do you mean the kind that looks very realistic and natural?\n[00:32 - 00:41] Speaker B: Yes, exactly. The synthetic variety can look very realistic and natural. For the first few years, it should look really nice and even start to grow in a few months.\n[00:42 - 00:45] Speaker A: Wow! Thanks, you have been so helpful!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance:**\nThe dialogue demonstrates good logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker A initially asks for advice on a \"new lawn\" without specifying natural or artificial.\n- Speaker B logically assumes a natural lawn and recommends \"Bermuda variety\" for reseeding, which is a relevant and coherent response to the initial broad query.\n- Speaker A then clarifies their consideration of an \"artificial lawn,\" which is a relevant shift within the overarching topic of \"new lawn.\" This shows the user refining their request.\n- Speaker B promptly adapts and suggests a \"synthetic variety,\" demonstrating logical consistency in adjusting to the user's updated needs.\n- Speaker A's subsequent clarification question (\"do you mean the kind that looks very realistic and natural?\") is also highly relevant, seeking important details about the suggested artificial lawn.\n- Speaker B's final response confirms the realism and provides more details, maintaining topic coherence and directly answering the clarification.\nThe conversation flows naturally with relevant responses that build upon each other, even with the user's mid-conversation clarification.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency:**\nThe interactional fluency is generally good, with only one brief overlap that is explicitly acknowledged and falls within acceptable parameters.\n- There is a brief overlap between Speaker B's turn ending at [00:13] and Speaker A's turn starting at [00:12]. This overlap lasts for 1 second. Speaker A explicitly says, \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and makes the brief overlap natural rather than disruptive. According to the criteria, \"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable.\" This overlap fits that description.\n- The second \"interruption\" by Speaker A at [00:26] (\"Hold on\") does not show an overlap in the provided timestamps; Speaker B's previous turn ends at [00:26] and Speaker A's starts at [00:26], indicating no prolonged overlap or pause.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses are 1 second ([00:05-00:06] and [00:41-00:42]), which are considered \"small pauses\" and acceptable.\nOverall, the conversation feels natural and fluid, without harmful prolonged pauses or extended overlapping turns.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--88861",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: So, what do you think?\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: I think you're doing a great job. You're very organized and effi and it\n[00:04 - 00:14] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I just realized—do you think we should also start preparing for the upcoming charity event? I'm concerned about the budget allocation for that.\n[00:14 - 00:22] Speaker B: Oh, absolutely. That's definitely something we need to focus on. But to finish my thought, I was going to say you're very organized and efficient.\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker A: Thank you. I try my best to keep things in order.\n[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker B: It shows. The church is in good hands with you in charge of the finances.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Speaker B's initial response (00:01-00:05) directly answers Speaker A's general question. Speaker A then introduces a new topic (charity event, budget) but acknowledges it as an interruption (\"Sorry to jump in\"), which shows awareness of conversational flow. Speaker B skillfully handles this by addressing the new topic (\"Oh, absolutely. That's definitely something we need to focus on\") while also returning to finish their original thought (\"But to finish my thought, I was going to say you're very organized and efficient.\"). This demonstrates excellent topic coherence and logical consistency, as both speakers manage to keep multiple threads active and relevant. Speaker A's subsequent \"Thank you\" and Speaker B's final reinforcing comment (\"It shows. The church is in good hands with you in charge of the finances.\") tie back perfectly to the completed compliment, which itself is relevant to the initial general question and potentially to financial management hinted at by the charity event budget concern.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There is a brief overlap between Speaker A's turn (00:04-00:14) and Speaker B's turn (00:01-00:05) lasting approximately 1 second (from 00:04 to 00:05). Speaker A explicitly apologizes for this interruption (\"Sorry to jump in\"), which mitigates its negative impact and demonstrates good conversational etiquette. Speaker B then manages the turn effectively, allowing for a smooth transition and completion of their original thought. There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns, and the dialogue flows naturally despite the single, acknowledged, and well-managed overlap. The brevity of the overlap and the immediate apology mean it does not constitute a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--599",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I want to go to New York. How should I go?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Well, I'd recommend going by train. They're a lot cheaper than flying.\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker A: What's New York like?\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: It's pretty big! There are tons of cool things to see.\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker A: Is there anything you recommend?\n[00:14 - 00:24] Speaker B: Well, the best thing to do is to visit Central Park. It's really nice and filled with tons of cool things. It's also very convenient because it is on 5th Avenue and close to\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but is Central Park safe for tourists? I've heard mixed reviews about certain areas.\n[00:30 - 00:43] Speaker B: Most parts of Central Park are very safe, especially during the day. However, it's always a good idea to stay in well-populated areas. As I was saying, it's also very convenient because it is on 5th Avenue and 7th Avenue.\n[00:43 - 00:44] Speaker A: What else should I do?\n[00:45 - 01:01] Speaker B: It's a big city, so it depends on your interests. For example, if you are into Broadway shows, you should definitely go to the New Amsterdam Theater. I'd recommend checking out the Statue of Liberty. My favorite thing to do there is to eat in the restaurant on the top of the pedestal. It's a really beautiful place with\n[01:00 - 01:05] Speaker A: Oh, I love good dining experiences! Could you tell me more about that restaurant?\n[01:05 - 01:13] Speaker B: Sure, it's a really beautiful restaurant with a really nice view of the city. I'd also recommend going to the Empire State Building. It has a lot of nice views.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A initiates a conversation about visiting New York, and Speaker B consistently provides relevant information and recommendations.\n\n*   Speaker A's initial questions (how to go, what's New York like, recommendations) are directly addressed by Speaker B.\n*   When Speaker B recommends Central Park, Speaker A's interruption at [00:23] asking about safety is highly relevant to the topic of Central Park and a practical concern for a tourist. Speaker A even acknowledges the interruption (\"Sorry to cut in\"), which shows an understanding of turn-taking norms.\n*   Speaker B then directly answers the safety question before attempting to resume their previous point, demonstrating an ability to address the immediate query while maintaining the overall conversational thread.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up at [00:43] (\"What else should I do?\") logically continues the request for recommendations.\n*   Speaker B's response at [00:45] provides diverse suggestions, including the Statue of Liberty and a restaurant. Speaker A's enthusiastic interruption at [01:00] about the dining experience is a direct, relevant follow-up on a specific detail mentioned by Speaker B, indicating engagement and interest.\n*   Speaker B's final response at [01:05] elaborates on the restaurant and adds another relevant recommendation (Empire State Building).\n\nAll turns build upon the previous ones in a coherent and logical manner. There are no instances of off-topic responses or misunderstandings that break the flow of information exchange.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is excellent.\n\n*   **Pauses:** All pauses between turns ([00:02-00:03], [00:06-00:07], [00:08-00:09], [00:11-00:12], [00:44-00:45], [01:04-01:05]) are consistently 1 second. These are very brief and natural, indicating smooth turn-taking without any awkward or prolonged silences. They fall within the acceptable range.\n*   **Overlaps:**\n    *   At [00:23 - 00:24], Speaker A overlaps Speaker B for approximately 1 second. Speaker A explicitly states \"Sorry to cut in,\" indicating an awareness of the overlap, and the content of the overlap is a direct and pertinent question for clarification on the ongoing topic (Central Park safety). This is a brief, purposeful, and interactionally appropriate overlap, not a disruptive one.\n    *   At [01:00 - 01:01], Speaker A overlaps Speaker B for approximately 1 second. Speaker A expresses immediate enthusiasm (\"Oh, I love good dining experiences!\") and follows up on a specific detail Speaker B just introduced. This brief overlap conveys eagerness and active listening, contributing to a natural, dynamic conversation rather than hindering it.\n\nBoth overlaps are brief (1 second) and serve a clear interactional purpose (clarification, enthusiastic follow-up). They do not constitute \"prolonged overlapping turns\" that would be considered harmful. The dialogue flows very naturally, reflecting real-life conversation patterns where brief interjections and acknowledgements occur.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--59301",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hey, Darsh. I was just thinking about washing your windows and wondered if you'd like me to do that for you.\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Oh, Jaylinn, that would be so sweet of you! I really apprec— it. I've\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker A: I just remembered, do you have the right cleaning supplies? I could bring mine over if you don't.\n[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker B: Oh, that's a good point! I think I might be out of glass cleaner, actually. I do appreciate that about you. You're always so helpful and considerate.\n[00:23 - 00:32] Speaker A: Well, thank you. I enjoy doing things for you because I know it makes you happy. Plus, it's nice to be able to help out around the house.\n[00:32 - 00:36] Speaker B: You're such a dear friend, Jaylinn. Thank you so much for washing my windows!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building coherently on the topic of washing windows and the necessary preparations/appreciation for the act.\n- Speaker A initiates with a clear offer.\n- Speaker B's response directly addresses and accepts the offer, showing appreciation.\n- Speaker A's follow-up question about cleaning supplies is highly relevant, anticipating a practical need for the proposed task.\n- Speaker B's response to the supply question is direct and confirms a potential need, while continuing to express gratitude.\n- Speaker A's final response acknowledges the appreciation and explains their motivation, maintaining the warm and helpful tone.\n- Speaker B's concluding remark reiterates thanks, bringing the interaction to a natural close.\nThere are no instances of off-topic remarks, logical inconsistencies, or breaks in topic coherence.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is also excellent.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Most transitions are immediate or involve only a very brief, natural pause (e.g., the 1-second pause at [00:14 - 00:15]).\n- There is one brief overlap detected at [00:09 - 00:10], where Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence (\"I really apprec— it. I've\"). However, this is a very short overlap (approximately 1 second) and falls under the category of \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\" as per the guidelines. It doesn't disrupt the conversation's flow or understanding, and Speaker A's interjection is a relevant thought (\"I just remembered...\"). It feels like a natural, eager follow-up rather than a disruptive interruption. The conversation continues smoothly immediately after.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--418",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hi!\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Hey! I'm pretty good, how are you?\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker A: I'm doing well! I have to take a lot of medication each day, but I'm feeling pretty good about it.\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker B: That's great! You're probably doing better than me. I had to start taking some medication a couple of years ago, but I just can't seem to get it down right.\n[00:17 - 00:25] Speaker A: Oh no, I'm sorry to hear that! It's really important to make sure you take it every day as directed. Maybe I could share some\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker B: Actually, I've been wondering if there's a specific routine or method you use to remember your medication every day?\n[00:31 - 00:44] Speaker A: Well, I use a pill organizer and set alarms on my phone. But before you take any new medication, it's really important to talk to your doctor about what it is and if it's right for you. Have you been to the doctor lately?\n[00:45 - 00:51] Speaker B: Yeah, I've been going. There's a new medication that my doctor gave me, but it seems like it's only helping a little bit.\n[00:51 - 01:06] Speaker A: Oh, I see. Have you discussed the limited effectiveness with your doctor? Maybe they can adjust the dosage or try a different medication. Also, I wanted to mention that if you ever need help organizing your pills or setting reminders I'm more\n[01:05 - 01:12] Speaker B: Thanks, I appreciate that. Speaking of which, do you think using a pill organizer and setting alarms would really make a difference for me?\n[01:12 - 01:19] Speaker A: Absolutely, it can be a game-changer! And about the reminders, they can really help ensure you don't miss a dose.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker A and Speaker B consistently respond to each other's statements and questions in a logical and understandable manner. The conversation naturally progresses from an initial greeting to discussing medication, then to Speaker B's specific struggles with taking medication, and finally to Speaker A offering advice and support. Each turn builds on the previous one, maintaining a clear and consistent flow. For example, Speaker B's question about routines directly follows Speaker A's introduction of their own medication habits, and Speaker A's advice about consulting a doctor is relevant to Speaker B's reported difficulties. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or illogical jumps in conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally very good. There are no long pauses between turns, indicating a natural and responsive conversational pace. While there are a couple of brief instances where Speaker B interjects before Speaker A finishes their sentence (e.g., at 00:25 and 01:05), these are very short overlaps (1-2 seconds) and do not constitute \"extended overlaps\" that would hinder understanding or disrupt the conversation's flow. These brief interruptions are common in natural conversation and do not detract from the overall fluency, as explicitly stated in the guidelines (\"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\"). Speaker B's interjections are also relevant follow-up questions or acknowledgements, suggesting engagement rather than disruption.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--146",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: York Hotel, can I help you?\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Yes, I'd like to book a room for 3 nights.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker A: When will you be arriving?\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker B: We'll arrive the day after tomorrow. That's July twen I meant\n[00:08 - 00:12] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, did you mean July twentieth?\n[00:12 - 00:14] Speaker B: Yes, sorry, the twentieth.\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker A: Yes, sir. Single or double?\n[00:17 - 00:18] Speaker B: One double room.\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker A: Alright. One double room until the twenty-third.\n[00:22 - 00:23] Speaker B: How much will that be?\n[00:23 - 00:27] Speaker A: $130 a night, including breakfast.\n[00:27 - 00:28] Speaker B: That'll be fine.\n[00:29 - 00:30] Speaker A: May I have your name, please?\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker B: Faber, Faber, Faber, Mr. Faber.\n[00:35 - 00:39] Speaker A: Just to confirm, you mentioned July twentieth as your arrival date, correct?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one and contributes directly to the goal of booking a hotel room.\n- Speaker B's initial request is clear.\n- Speaker A asks relevant follow-up questions (arrival time, room type).\n- Speaker A's interruption at `[00:08 - 00:12]` to clarify the date is highly relevant and necessary for accuracy in booking.\n- Speaker B provides all requested information and asks relevant questions about pricing.\n- Speaker A's final confirmation of the arrival date at `[00:35 - 00:39]` demonstrates good practice in service interactions, ensuring all details are correct.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant information, topic shifts, or illogical responses. The conversation progresses coherently from initiation to confirmation of details.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good, demonstrating natural conversational flow.\n- **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The timing between turns is consistently short and appropriate, indicating a smooth conversation. For example, Speaker B's response `[00:12 - 00:14]` immediately follows Speaker A's question, and Speaker A's confirmation `[00:18 - 00:21]` follows Speaker B's information without delay.\n- **Overlaps:** One notable overlap occurs at `[00:08 - 00:12]` where Speaker A interrupts Speaker B. However, this overlap is brief (Speaker A starts 1 second before B finishes) and serves a clear functional purpose: clarification of a critical detail (date). Furthermore, Speaker A explicitly acknowledges and apologizes for the interruption (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which makes it a natural and polite intervention rather than a disruptive or harmful overlapping turn. It does not hinder understanding or conversation flow, but rather aids in clarifying information swiftly. Brief, functional overlaps like this are common in natural conversation and do not constitute a \"harmful\" extended overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--215",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: What's the matter, Lisa? You don't look too good.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: I just found out that my husband is cheating on me.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: You mean Mark? He seems like such an honest and trustworthy\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B: That's what I thought too. But it seems that he's been seeing someone else for about two months.\n[00:13 - 00:16] Speaker A: Two months? How did you find out?\n[00:16 - 00:26] Speaker B: I asked for leave and was at home when the telephone rang. I picked it up and a girl asked to talk to Mark. She then asked if I was his sister, and I said no, I was his wife. She hung up immediately.\n[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker A: So you asked him about the girl who called, and\n[00:29 - 00:36] Speaker B: Yeah, I did. He first said it was someone from work. He gave me a lame excuse, so I pressed him on it.\n[00:36 - 00:37] Speaker A: What'd he do?\n[00:37 - 00:42] Speaker B: He kept trying to make stupid excuses, and then broke down and admitted to a small indiscretion.\n[00:42 - 00:51] Speaker A: Indiscretion? How can an indiscretion last two months? I mean, you two have been married for two years! How can he do that to you?\n[00:51 - 00:55] Speaker B: I told him I would divorce him if he wouldn't tell me the truth or end the relationship with her.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the preceding one, demonstrating strong topic coherence and conversational engagement.\n*   Speaker A initiates with a concern, to which Speaker B provides a direct and immediate answer about her distress.\n*   Speaker A's subsequent reactions (\"You mean Mark? He seems like such an honest and trustworthy\") show active listening and a natural human response of surprise and disbelief.\n*   Speaker B consistently provides relevant details and narratives to answer Speaker A's questions and prompts (\"That's what I thought too. But it seems that he's been seeing someone else for about two months.\" and the detailed explanation of how she found out).\n*   Speaker A's questions (\"How did you find out?\", \"What'd he do?\") are pertinent follow-ups that drive the narrative forward.\n*   Speaker A's final interjection (\"Indiscretion? How can an indiscretion last two months? I mean, you two have been married for two years! How can he do that to you?\") not only reflects strong empathy and concern but also logically challenges Speaker B's use of a mitigating term (\"indiscretion\") given the severity of the situation.\n*   Speaker B's final statement provides her ultimate action, directly related to the unfolding revelation.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant responses, sudden topic shifts, or illogical statements. The conversation flows naturally and coherently.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates good interactional fluency.\nThere are two brief overlaps identified:\n1.  `[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker B:` overlaps with `[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A:`. Speaker B starts speaking one second before Speaker A finishes. This overlap (\"That's what I thought too\") appears to be a natural instance of Speaker B eagerly confirming Speaker A's sentiment, which is common in supportive, empathetic conversations. It does not hinder comprehension.\n2.  `[00:29 - 00:36] Speaker B:` overlaps with `[00:27 - 00:30] Speaker A:`. Speaker B starts speaking one second before Speaker A finishes their leading question (\"So you asked him about the girl who called, and\"). This overlap (\"Yeah, I did.\") is also very natural, indicating Speaker B's readiness to affirm and continue the story.\n\nThese overlaps are brief (1 second each) and do not qualify as \"extended\" or \"prolonged\" according to the given criteria (\"Small pauses and brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable, while prolonged pauses and overlapping turns are harmful.\"). They contribute to a sense of natural, dynamic conversation rather than indicating poor turn-taking. No long pauses are observed between turns, maintaining a steady conversational pace.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--58198",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: I can't believe we both love comic books!\n[00:03 - 00:07] Speaker B: I know, it's so cool. I've been reading them since I was a kid, and\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but I just thought of something—have you seen the latest trailer for the new superhero movie? It looks incredible!\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: Yes, I've been looking forward to it for months. But as I was saying, I've been reading comics since I was a kid.\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker A: Me too! I'm so excited to see this new movie. It looks amazing.\n[00:25 - 00:26] Speaker B: So, who's your favorite superhero?\n[00:27 - 00:33] Speaker A: That's tough, but I think Spider-Man is my favorite. He's just so cool and has this\n[00:32 - 00:40] Speaker B: Oh, definitely Spider-Man! He's my favorite too. But I also really like Iron Man and Captain America. They're both super strong and powerful.\n[00:40 - 00:51] Speaker A: Yeah, they're both great heroes. But Spider-Man is just so relatable, you know? He's not perfect and he makes mistakes, but he always tries to do the right thing.\n[00:51 - 00:55] Speaker B: Totally! And he always has funny one-liners when he's fighting bad guys.\n[00:55 - 00:59] Speaker A: Exactly! He's just such a great character overall.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance.\n1.  **Logical Consistency:** Speakers A and B consistently respond to each other's points. When Speaker A interrupts to bring up the movie trailer, Speaker B addresses it before attempting to return to their original point. When Speaker B then shifts to asking about favorite superheroes, Speaker A directly answers the question. Subsequent turns build on the discussion about Spider-Man, with both speakers agreeing and elaborating on why they like the character. There are no contradictory statements or responses that don't make sense given the preceding turn.\n2.  **Topic Coherence:** The conversation maintains a high degree of topic coherence. It starts with a shared love for comic books, transitions naturally to superhero movies (a closely related topic), and then smoothly pivots to favorite superheroes within the comic book/superhero universe. While Speaker A introduces a new sub-topic (movie trailer) with an interruption, it's explicitly acknowledged and is closely related to the main theme. Speaker B's subsequent shift to \"favorite superhero\" keeps the conversation within the established domain, leading to a focused and coherent discussion.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency with natural conversational dynamics.\n1.  **Extended Overlaps:** There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    *   [00:06 - 00:07] Speaker A overlaps Speaker B. Speaker A explicitly acknowledges and apologizes (\"Sorry to jump in\"), indicating an aware and polite interruption. This is a common and acceptable conversational move that shows eagerness to contribute rather than a disruptive takeover. The overlap itself is very short (1 second).\n    *   [00:32 - 00:33] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A. This overlap is also very brief (1 second) and indicates strong agreement and enthusiasm (\"Oh, definitely Spider-Man!\"). This type of brief, anticipatory overlap is natural in engaged conversation and does not hinder understanding or flow.\n    Neither of these overlaps is prolonged or disruptive; they instead reflect genuine engagement and enthusiasm.\n2.  **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The turn-taking is swift and responsive throughout the dialogue, indicating active listening and engagement from both participants.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--53",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: How long does it take to get to downtown from here?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: It is 15 minutes' drive.\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker A: What companies do we have in our neighborhood?\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: Mitsubishi, HP, IBM and many other tech giants\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: Sorry, I just remembered—do we have any partnerships with these companies, or are they just our neighbors?\n[00:16 - 00:24] Speaker B: They're just our neighbors, but we do collaborate with some of them on certain projects. By the way, I didn't finish mentioning the other companies around us like Oracle\n[00:23 - 00:25] Speaker A: Oh, right. Please continue.\n[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker B: As I was saying, there are also many other famous corporations nearby.\n[00:30 - 00:33] Speaker A: Does the 7th floor belong to our company too?\n[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker B: Yes, our company has two floors, the 6th and 7th floor in this building.\n[00:38 - 00:42] Speaker A: It's such a large firm. Do we have our own staff restaurant?\n[00:42 - 00:44] Speaker B: Yes, at the end of the hall.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B consistently provides direct and accurate answers to Speaker A's questions.\n\n- **[00:00 - 00:04]**: Speaker A asks for travel time, and Speaker B provides a clear, relevant answer.\n- **[00:05 - 00:11]**: Speaker A asks about neighborhood companies, and Speaker B lists several relevant examples.\n- **[00:10 - 00:15]**: Speaker A's follow-up question about partnerships is a direct continuation and clarification of the previous topic, showing good topic coherence. The \"Sorry, I just remembered\" indicates a natural thought process.\n- **[00:16 - 00:24]**: Speaker B answers the partnership question directly and then smoothly attempts to return to the previous topic of listing companies (\"By the way, I didn't finish mentioning the other companies...\"). This shows awareness of an interrupted point and an attempt to maintain coherence.\n- **[00:23 - 00:25]**: Speaker A acknowledges Speaker B's attempt to resume, indicating good understanding and willingness to follow the flow.\n- **[00:26 - 00:29]**: Speaker B attempts to continue, albeit generically.\n- **[00:30 - 00:33]**: Speaker A introduces a new topic (\"Does the 7th floor belong to our company too?\"). While this is an abrupt shift from Speaker B's ongoing attempt to list companies, it's a logical question for someone exploring a new environment and doesn't break the overall logical consistency of the conversation as a whole, just the immediate sub-topic flow.\n- **[00:33 - 00:37]**: Speaker B provides a clear, relevant answer to the floor question.\n- **[00:38 - 00:42]**: Speaker A's question about a staff restaurant is a natural follow-up to the observation of a \"large firm\" (implied by having two floors), maintaining coherence.\n- **[00:42 - 00:44]**: Speaker B provides a direct and relevant answer.\n\nOverall, the responses are highly relevant, and topic coherence is well-maintained with only one minor abrupt shift initiated by Speaker A, which doesn't significantly harm the conversation's logical flow.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent, demonstrating natural turn-taking with no prolonged pauses or harmful extended overlaps.\n\n- **Pauses**: There are very brief pauses (1 second) between some turns ([00:02-00:03], [00:04-00:05], [00:11-00:16], [00:25-00:26], [00:29-00:30], [00:37-00:38]). These are typical of natural conversation, allowing for processing or slight hesitation, and do not qualify as \"long pauses.\" In several instances, responses are almost immediate ([00:33-00:33], [00:42-00:42]), further indicating good flow.\n- **Overlaps**: Two brief overlaps are observed:\n    - **[00:10 - 00:11]**: Speaker A starts speaking at 00:10 while Speaker B finishes at 00:11. This is a 1-second overlap.\n    - **[00:23 - 00:24]**: Speaker A starts speaking at 00:23 while Speaker B finishes at 00:24. This is also a 1-second overlap.\nBoth overlaps are very brief (1 second) and fall under the \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\" criterion. They suggest eager or anticipatory turn-taking, which is common in natural, fluid conversation and does not indicate a breakdown in communication or an \"overlapping turn\" that is harmful. There are no extended overlaps where speakers talk over each other for a prolonged period.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--21569",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, thanks for tuning my car. I really need the extra speed.\n[00:04 - 00:10] Speaker B: No problem. I just adjusted the engine and gave it a little tune-up. You should be able to drive a bit faster and notice\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: Oh, by the way, when you say \"a bit faster,\" do you think it'll make a noticeable difference on the track?\n[00:16 - 00:25] Speaker B: Absolutely. You should feel the difference, especially during acceleration. Also, you could try using your brakes less, accelerating more smoothly, and maintaining a\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but when you say \"using brakes less,\" do you mean I should coast more or just rely on downshifting?\n[00:31 - 00:38] Speaker B: More on downshifting. Coasting can be useful too, but downshifting gives you better control, especially in tight corners.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's gratitude and explains the car tuning. Speaker A's follow-up questions (\"do you think it'll make a noticeable difference on the track?\", \"do you mean I should coast more or just rely on downshifting?\") are direct clarifications or expansions on previous statements, maintaining topic coherence. Speaker B consistently provides relevant answers and additional helpful information. The conversation flows naturally from the initial topic of car tuning to detailed driving techniques, with each turn building logically on the previous one.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits good fluency. There are two instances of brief overlaps (Speaker A starting at [00:09] while Speaker B is at [00:10], and Speaker A starting at [00:24] while Speaker B is at [00:25]). Both are very short (approx. 1 second) and appear to be natural interruptions, especially given Speaker A's explicit apology \"Sorry to cut in\" at [00:24]. These brief overlaps do not disrupt the flow or comprehension of the conversation. There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns; the pauses are minimal (e.g., 1 second between [00:03] and [00:04], and [00:15] and [00:16]), which is acceptable and natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--179",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Can I help you?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Yes, is there any vacant room for tomorrow?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: I am sorry. We are full up for tomorrow.\n[00:07 - 00:09] Speaker B: Well, is there any other hotel nearby?\n[00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: Yes, the Sunset Hotel is three blocks away. Maybe you can check with\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: Oh, do you happen to know their contact number? It would save me some time.\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker A: I don't have it on hand, but you can easily find it online. I was about to suggest you could ask them directly when you get there.\n[00:26 - 00:26] Speaker B: Thank you.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses are consistently relevant and logically coherent throughout the dialogue.\n*   Speaker B's initial query about a vacant room is a direct response to Speaker A's offer of help.\n*   Speaker A's apology and statement of being full up are direct answers to B's query.\n*   Speaker B logically follows up by asking about other nearby hotels when their initial request is denied.\n*   Speaker A provides a specific, relevant suggestion (Sunset Hotel).\n*   Speaker B's question about the contact number for the suggested hotel is a logical next step to save time.\n*   Speaker A's response, explaining they don't have the number but offering alternatives (online search, asking directly), is relevant and clarifies their earlier, interrupted suggestion.\n*   Speaker B's final \"Thank you\" appropriately concludes the interaction.\nThe topic coherence is perfectly maintained, moving from the initial room inquiry to finding an alternative and its contact details.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction generally demonstrates good fluency with appropriate turn-taking and no long pauses. The pauses between turns are brief (typically 1 second), which is natural and acceptable.\nHowever, there is one instance of an overlapping turn:\n*   [00:10 - 00:15] Speaker A: Yes, the Sunset Hotel is three blocks away. Maybe you can check with\n*   [00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: Oh, do you happen to know their contact number? It would save me some time.\nSpeaker B begins speaking at 00:13 while Speaker A is still speaking (ending at 00:15), resulting in a 2-second overlap where Speaker A is cut off mid-sentence. While this is an \"overlapping turn\" and not \"brief,\" it is not excessively \"prolonged.\" Speaker A recovers well in their subsequent turn by clarifying their incomplete thought, and the overlap does not lead to miscommunication or significantly impede the flow of information. Despite this single interruption, the overall pace and responsiveness of the dialogue remain natural.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--534",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hi, Bob! How's your week going so far?\n[00:03 - 00:10] Speaker B: Good! I heard something interesting about a company building a hyper loop - I think it would be really revolutionary for\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker A: Is that where you could travel across the US in a vacuum tube?\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker B: Yeah, that's the one. You'd only need to travel about 250 miles to get from New York to Washington DC in half an hour!\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker A: That's pretty exciting. Maybe they could do the same thing in other countries too?\n[00:25 - 00:34] Speaker B: Yeah, they think it would be good for commuters. It would be crazy to go that fast in a tube. By the way, what were you saying earlier about the company building the hyper loop?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with a natural greeting and a conversational pivot by Speaker B to the hyperloop topic. Speaker A picks up on this topic well, showing good topic coherence and engagement. Speaker B provides relevant details, and Speaker A continues to engage by asking a follow-up question. However, the logical consistency breaks down significantly in Speaker B's final turn. Speaker B asks, \"By the way, what were you saying earlier about the company building the hyper loop?\" This is illogical because Speaker B themselves introduced the topic of the company building the hyperloop at [00:03 - 00:10]. Speaker A did not mention the company, only clarified what a hyperloop was. This indicates a clear failure in conversational memory and logical consistency, making the dialogue awkward and unnatural.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThere is one detected overlap: [00:09 - 00:13] Speaker A overlaps [00:03 - 00:10] Speaker B. This means Speaker A starts speaking at 0:09 while Speaker B is still speaking until 0:10. This is a brief overlap of only 1 second, which is generally acceptable and often indicative of active listening or eagerness to contribute rather than a disruption. There are no long pauses between speaker turns indicated by the timestamps; the conversation flows at a reasonable pace. Therefore, interactional fluency is good, with no prolonged overlaps or long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--98",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: I'd like to pay my bill now.\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: Your name and room number, please?\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: Tom Wilson in Room 306.\n[00:07 - 00:10] Speaker B: Have you used any hotel services this morning, such\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: Sorry, just to clarify, are you asking about services like laundry or room service?\n[00:15 - 00:19] Speaker B: Yes, exactly. Have you used any of those this morning?\n[00:19 - 00:20] Speaker A: No.\n[00:20 - 00:30] Speaker B: OK. You have stayed for four nights at 90 US dollars each, and here are the meals that you had at the hotel. That makes a total of 660 US dollars, including\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker A: Wait, I just remembered. Does that total include the minibar charges from yesterday?\n[00:34 - 00:39] Speaker B: Actually, I was just about to mention that the minibar charges were already included in the total.\n[00:40 - 00:42] Speaker A: Got it. Can I pay by credit card?\n[00:43 - 00:45] Speaker B: Of course. Please sign your name here.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate high logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial questions (\"Your name and room number, please?\", \"Have you used any hotel services this morning?\") are logical follow-ups to Speaker A's request to pay the bill.\n- Speaker A's clarification question (\"Sorry, just to clarify, are you asking about services like laundry or room service?\") is perfectly relevant to Speaker B's incomplete query, ensuring understanding.\n- Speaker A's interjection about minibar charges (\"Wait, I just remembered. Does that total include the minibar charges from yesterday?\") is highly relevant to the ongoing discussion of the bill total, showing active engagement and concern for accuracy.\n- Speaker B's response to the minibar question (\"Actually, I was just about to mention that the minibar charges were already included in the total.\") directly addresses the query and clarifies the situation.\n- The conversation progresses logically from identification, service checks, bill breakdown, and finally to payment method. All turns contribute to the central goal of settling the bill.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the conversation flows smoothly and naturally.\n- There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    - At [00:09 - 00:15], Speaker A interjects to seek clarification from Speaker B. This is a brief overlap (1 second duration of overlapping speech from B) and is a natural part of clarifying an incomplete sentence. It does not disrupt the conversation but rather helps it progress accurately.\n    - At [00:29 - 00:34], Speaker A interjects to ask about the minibar charges while Speaker B is still explaining the bill. This is also a brief overlap (1 second duration of overlapping speech from B) and is very natural for a customer who remembers a detail pertinent to the total during a financial breakdown. It signifies active listening and engagement, not a breakdown in fluency.\nNeither of these overlaps are extended or harmful; instead, they contribute to the natural, real-time feel of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--628",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: How are you doing?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: Pretty good! I'm considering voting for Donald Trump!\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker A: Do you really like him?\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Yeah, I think he's really tough and could improve our economy and\n[00:09 - 00:15] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but how do you feel about his controversial statements and actions? Do they not concern you?\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker B: I think he's really strong and I think it's time for someone like that to help America.\n[00:20 - 00:27] Speaker A: I can see where you're coming from. But I don't like the racist and misogynistic language he uses. It makes\n[00:26 - 00:32] Speaker B: I understand your point, but I believe his policies could bring more positive changes. What about his economic plans?\n[00:33 - 00:39] Speaker A: You're right. I think America needs someone like him. That's why I plan to vote for Hillary Clinton.\n[00:39 - 00:39] Speaker B: Hah!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue starts with good topic coherence and logical consistency. Speaker B states their political inclination, and Speaker A follows up with relevant questions and counter-points. Speaker B maintains their stance, albeit sometimes by re-emphasizing their core points rather than directly addressing every nuance of Speaker A's critique (e.g., at 00:16-00:20). Speaker A introduces specific criticisms (controversial statements, racist/misogynistic language) which are relevant to the discussion.\n\nHowever, a significant issue arises at the very end. At [00:33 - 00:39], Speaker A states, \"You're right. I think America needs someone like him. That's why I plan to vote for Hillary Clinton.\" This statement is a complete logical breakdown. Speaker A, who previously expressed strong disapproval of Trump's language and actions (\"I don't like the racist and misogynistic language he uses\"), suddenly agrees with Speaker B that \"America needs someone like him\" (referring to Trump, based on the previous turn). This agreement is then immediately followed by a contradictory decision to vote for Hillary Clinton, a completely different candidate. There is no logical bridge or explanation for this sudden and drastic shift in stance, making Speaker A's character inconsistent and the dialogue highly unrealistic and incoherent. This constitutes a significant issue in logical consistency and topic coherence for Speaker A's final turn, undermining the quality of the interaction.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good. There are no prolonged pauses between turns; most responses are immediate or have a very brief, natural delay (e.g., 1 second between 00:15 and 00:16, and 00:32 and 00:33).\n\nThere are two instances of overlapping speech:\n1.  At [00:09 - 00:15], Speaker A begins speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence (overlapping by 1 second). Speaker A acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and makes it a deliberate, brief interruption.\n2.  At [00:26 - 00:32], Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence (overlapping by 1 second).\n\nBoth overlaps are brief (1 second) and do not appear to be \"extended\" or harmful as per the criteria. They reflect a natural, slightly fast-paced conversation rather than a breakdown in turn-taking. Therefore, interactional fluency is maintained.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--77761",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Sarah. What do you think of this perfume I'm wearing?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: It smells really nice! You look confident and it\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: Oh, thanks! I actually feel pretty confident wearing it. I'm thinking about wearing it on my date tonight.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: You should definitely wear it! By the way, where are you going for the date?\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker A: We're going to this new Italian place downtown. I hope the perfume adds to the mood!\n[00:22 - 00:26] Speaker B: It definitely will! It'll make you smell even more attractive to your date.\n[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker A: Yeah, I think you're right. Thanks for the advice, Sarah!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the ongoing topic.\n- Speaker A introduces the perfume, and Speaker B's compliment is directly relevant.\n- Speaker A then links the perfume to confidence and a date, a natural extension.\n- Speaker B's follow-up question about the date location is coherent with the conversation's progression.\n- The discussion then returns to the perfume's role in the date, maintaining topic coherence.\n- The final exchange is a natural conclusion, with Speaker A thanking Speaker B for the advice.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant or off-topic responses, and the conversation flows logically from one point to the next.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nInteractional fluency is generally good, with a few points to note regarding overlaps and pauses:\n- There is an overlap between Speaker B ([00:03 - 00:06]) and Speaker A ([00:05 - 00:12]). Speaker A begins speaking at 00:05 while Speaker B is still speaking, cutting off Speaker B's sentence \"You look confident and it\". This is a 1-second overlap. While the prompt states \"brief overlaps... are acceptable,\" this specific instance involves a clear cut-off rather than a gentle overlap, which slightly detracts from perfect fluency. However, it is not \"prolonged\" and does not significantly disrupt the conversation's flow or intelligibility.\n- There is a small 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn ending at 00:21 and Speaker B's turn starting at 00:22. This is a very brief and natural pause, which is acceptable according to the criteria.\nOverall, despite the minor cut-off, the conversation proceeds smoothly without long, awkward pauses or extended, disruptive overlaps. The pace feels natural for a casual conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--125800",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey Auston, I'm just going to clean your fish tank real quick.\n[00:04 - 00:06] Speaker B: Okay, but be careful with my fish!\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: Don't worry, I'll take good care of them.\n[00:09 - 00:12] Speaker B: I hope so. Those fish are my babies.\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: Trust me, I know how to take care of fish. I used to have a fish tank when I was a kid, and\n[00:18 - 00:20] Speaker B: Really? What kind of fish did you have?\n[00:20 - 00:26] Speaker A: Oh, we had all kinds of fish. Goldfish, bettas, even a couple of clownfish.\n[00:26 - 00:29] Speaker B: Wow! That sounds like a lot of fun.\n[00:29 - 00:37] Speaker A: It was definitely a lot of work, but it was worth it. Seeing those little guys swim around always made my day better,\n[00:36 - 00:50] Speaker B: I totally get that. My mom used to have a fish tank when she was younger too. She loved it, but she had to give it up when she got pregnant with me because my dad said that having a baby and taking care of a bunch of fish was too much for her to handle at the same time.\n[00:50 - 00:59] Speaker A: That makes sense. It can be a lot to manage both at once. But you know, she could always get another one someday when you're older and can help her out.\n[01:00 - 01:04] Speaker B: Yeah, she's always talked about that. It would be really cool to have a fish tank together.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency throughout.\n- **Initial Setup and Reassurance:** Speaker B's concern about the fish is a direct and logical response to Speaker A's intention to clean the tank. Speaker A's subsequent reassurances are directly aimed at alleviating B's worry.\n- **Natural Topic Expansion:** When Speaker A mentions having a fish tank as a kid, Speaker B's question about the types of fish is a highly relevant and natural follow-up, indicating engagement and interest in A's personal experience.\n- **Relatable Anecdotes:** Speaker B's sharing of their mother's fish tank story is prompted by Speaker A's reflection on the \"work but worth it\" aspect of having fish. This is a very coherent and common way for conversations to progress, by sharing related personal anecdotes that build on a shared theme (fish tanks).\n- **Empathy and Future Outlook:** Speaker A's response to B's anecdote (\"That makes sense...\") shows understanding and offers a positive, relevant suggestion for the future. Speaker B's final remark ties back directly to A's suggestion, confirming the idea of a shared future interest.\nThe conversation maintains topic coherence around fish tanks and personal connections to them, with natural transitions and no irrelevant contributions or abrupt shifts.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, closely mimicking natural human conversation.\n- **Brief Overlaps:** There are a few instances of brief overlaps (e.g., `[00:18 - 00:20]` where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing, and `[00:36 - 00:50]` where Speaker B begins just as Speaker A concludes their thought). These overlaps are very short (1 second or less) and indicate engaged, enthusiastic turn-taking rather than disruptive interruptions. They suggest that speakers are listening and anticipating, which is characteristic of highly fluent dialogue.\n- **Acceptable Pauses:** Small pauses are present (e.g., 1-second pause at `[00:03 - 00:04]` and `[00:59 - 01:00]`). These brief silences are natural for processing information and preparing a response, and they do not hinder the flow of the conversation.\n- **No Long Pauses or Extended Overlaps:** Crucially, there are no instances of prolonged silence or extended periods where both speakers are talking over each other. The turn-taking is smooth and efficient.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--41696",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi! I'm Haroon.\n[00:02 - 00:17] Speaker B: Welcome, Haroon! We're so glad you chose to stay with us. Let me show you around the hotel. This is the lobby, where you can relax and socialize with other guests. Over there is the breakfast area, and through those doors is the swimming pool. Your room is just up these stairs, and\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: Oh, before we go up, could you tell me the pool hours? I'm thinking of taking a swim later.\n[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker B: Of course! The pool is open from 6 AM to 10 PM. Now, as I was saying, your room is just up these stairs.\n[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker A: Wow, this place is amazing! Thank you so much for showing me around.\n[00:34 - 00:37] Speaker B: You're welcome. We hope you enjoy your stay with us.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi! I'm Haroon.** - A clear introduction.\n2.  **[00:02 - 00:17] Speaker B: Welcome, Haroon! ... Let me show you around the hotel.** - Speaker B's response is a welcoming greeting, acknowledging Haroon's introduction and immediately transitioning to offering a hotel tour, which is a logical next step for a new guest.\n3.  **[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: Oh, before we go up, could you tell me the pool hours? I'm thinking of taking a swim later.** - Speaker A's question about pool hours is directly relevant to Speaker B's previous mention of the swimming pool (`...and through those doors is the swimming pool.`). It's a natural and practical question in the context of being shown around a hotel.\n4.  **[00:22 - 00:29] Speaker B: Of course! The pool is open from 6 AM to 10 PM. Now, as I was saying, your room is just up these stairs.** - Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's question and then smoothly transitions back to the interrupted tour (\"Now, as I was saying...\"), maintaining coherence and logical flow.\n5.  **[00:29 - 00:34] Speaker A: Wow, this place is amazing! Thank you so much for showing me around.** - Speaker A expresses appreciation for the tour being given, a relevant and polite response.\n6.  **[00:34 - 00:37] Speaker B: You're welcome. We hope you enjoy your stay with us.** - Speaker B's closing remarks are standard and appropriate for the end of a welcome/tour interaction.\n\nOverall, the conversation is highly relevant, coherent, and logical from start to finish. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is very high, appearing natural and spontaneous.\n1.  **Pauses:**\n    *   There is a 1-second pause between Speaker A's initial greeting (`00:01`) and Speaker B's welcome (`00:02`). This is a short, acceptable pause that allows for natural turn-taking.\n    *   All subsequent transitions between turns (`00:22`, `00:29`, `00:34`) show immediate responses with no detectable pauses, indicating a smooth, responsive conversation.\n2.  **Overlaps:**\n    *   There is a 1-second overlap between Speaker B's turn ending at `00:17` and Speaker A's turn beginning at `00:16`. This means Speaker A started speaking while Speaker B was still finishing their sentence. This is a **brief overlap**.\n    *   In this specific context, Speaker A interjects a question about the pool immediately after Speaker B mentions the pool. Such interjections, especially for relevant questions, are common in natural conversation and often involve brief overlaps. It demonstrates engagement rather than causing confusion or a breakdown in communication. It does not appear to be a \"prolonged\" or \"harmful\" overlap.\n    The conversation flows very well, and the brief overlap enhances its naturalness without impeding understanding.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--3447",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I don't know, Bob. I just don't know what to include to\n[00:02 - 00:09] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but have you thought about what exactly is making you feel uncertain? Is it the feedback from the publisher, or something else?\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A: It's mainly the feedback. They said it was too vague and needed more specific details. I was\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker B: There you go. So if they wanted more specific details, why not just give them what they want?\n[00:21 - 00:28] Speaker A: You're right, Bob. That makes sense. I'll try rewriting the story with more specific details and see what happens.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A introduces a problem (uncertainty about what to include). Speaker B immediately jumps in (acknowledged with \"Sorry to jump in\") to clarify the source of uncertainty, which is a direct and relevant follow-up. Speaker A then provides specific details about the feedback, which directly answers B's question. Speaker B then uses that specific information to offer a clear, logical solution, which Speaker A acknowledges as making sense and commits to implementing. The topic remains consistently focused on Speaker A's writing dilemma and the feedback received, progressing from problem identification to resolution.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is high. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  [00:02 - 00:09] Speaker B overlaps with [00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: This is a 1-second overlap (00:02-00:03). Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" which makes the overlap feel natural and polite, indicating an engaged listener eager to help.\n2.  [00:16 - 00:20] Speaker B overlaps with [00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A: This is also a 1-second overlap (00:16-00:17). Speaker A is cut off (\"I was\"), but the interruption is very brief and common in natural, dynamic conversations where one speaker anticipates or understands the core point.\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns; the gaps are either brief (1 second, e.g., 00:09-00:10 and 00:20-00:21) or involve brief, natural overlaps. These brief overlaps and short pauses do not hinder the flow but rather contribute to the naturalness of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--34159",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hey, Tesla. I was thinking, since I've been here for a while and done well, maybe I could be a candidate for\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B: Hold on, before we dive into that, can you give me a quick overview of what you've accomplished recently? I want to make sure I have a full picture.\n[00:14 - 00:21] Speaker A: Sure, I've led a few successful projects, improved team efficiency, and have been mentoring some of the newer members.\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: That's good to know. I'll need to see how you do with some upcoming tasks before we discuss a potential promotion in detail.\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker A: I understand. I just wanted to put it out there.\n[00:32 - 00:35] Speaker B: Yeah, I appreciate that. Let me think about it and we'll talk soon.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and logically consistent. Speaker A initiates a discussion about career progression, and Speaker B's first response directly addresses this by asking for accomplishments, which is a logical next step in such a conversation. Speaker A provides the requested information clearly. Speaker B then offers a professional and relevant next step regarding the potential promotion, acknowledging A's contributions while indicating further evaluation is needed. Speaker A's acceptance (\"I understand. I just wanted to put it out there.\") is a perfectly coherent response to B's stance. Finally, Speaker B's closing remarks (\"Yeah, I appreciate that. Let me think about it and we'll talk soon.\") appropriately concludes the immediate discussion while keeping the topic open for the future. The topic remains coherent throughout, focusing on Speaker A's potential promotion, and there are no instances of irrelevant or contradictory statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction demonstrates excellent fluency. There are no extended overlaps indicated by the timestamps; turns follow each other immediately or with very brief, natural pauses (e.g., A ends at 0:06, B starts at 0:06; A ends at 0:13, B starts at 0:14). These short gaps or immediate transitions are indicative of natural conversation flow and efficient turn-taking. Speaker B's \"Hold on\" suggests a brief, natural interruption to steer the conversation, which is part of fluent, dynamic dialogue, not a problematic prolonged overlap. There are no long pauses that would disrupt the flow or indicate hesitation. The conversation feels natural and continuous.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--678",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Hi!\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Hey! What's new?\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker A: I recently tried some new recipes, and I'd like to tell you about them!\n[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker B: What kind of recipes?\n[00:09 - 00:18] Speaker A: I tried making mashed potatoes and bacon the other night. I'm pretty good with potato and macaroni and cheese, but it's really fun trying out new dishes and\n[00:17 - 00:24] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but do you have any tips for making the perfect mashed potatoes? Mine always turn out a bit lumpy.\n[00:24 - 00:35] Speaker A: Sure, I can share some tips! But I haven't finished telling you about the other recipes I tried. I also made spaghetti the other night, which is one of my favorite meals to make at home.\n[00:36 - 00:37] Speaker B: I like cooking with my dad!\n[00:38 - 00:41] Speaker A: I have so much fun with my boyfriend when we cook together.\n[00:41 - 00:43] Speaker B: Do you guys have a favorite dish to make?\n[00:43 - 00:50] Speaker A: I like making a ton of different dishes. I especially enjoy making really delicious pasta dishes\n[00:49 - 00:52] Speaker B: I love making some of my favorite dishes like lamb chops and steak!\n[00:53 - 00:55] Speaker A: I've been told I make some really good desserts!\n[00:56 - 01:02] Speaker B: That's awesome! I haven't made any desserts in a while, but I plan to soon. What's your favorite dessert to make?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates good logical consistency and topic coherence, though the specific initial topic of \"new recipes\" broadens throughout the conversation.\n\n*   **Initial Relevance:** Speaker A introduces \"new recipes,\" and Speaker B follows up appropriately asking \"What kind of recipes?\" Speaker A then details specific recipes (mashed potatoes, bacon, macaroni and cheese).\n*   **Relevant Interruption:** Speaker B's interruption to ask for mashed potato tips is highly relevant to Speaker A's current point about mashed potatoes. Speaker A acknowledges the interruption and states she hasn't finished, which maintains logical flow.\n*   **Topic Evolution:** After Speaker A mentions spaghetti, Speaker B's comment \"I like cooking with my dad!\" is a shift from talking about *recipes* to talking about the *act of cooking with others*. However, this is a natural evolution of a conversation about cooking, rather than a jarring or incoherent topic change. Speaker A then follows this lead by talking about cooking with her boyfriend.\n*   **Further Evolution:** Speaker B then asks about a \"favorite dish to make,\" which is a logical continuation of the \"cooking with others\" theme, and Speaker A responds in kind. The subsequent discussion of favorite dishes (pasta, lamb chops, steak) remains coherent within the broader theme of food and cooking.\n*   **Minor Abruptness:** Speaker A's shift to \"I've been told I make some really good desserts!\" after Speaker B just mentioned savory dishes (lamb chops and steak) is a little abrupt, but still within the overarching \"food\" topic. Speaker B quickly picks up on the new sub-topic by asking about A's favorite dessert to make.\n\nOverall, the responses are logically consistent, and the topic coherence is maintained, even as the conversation naturally evolves from a specific sub-topic (new recipes) to broader related ones (cooking partners, favorite dishes, desserts). There are no instances of irrelevant or nonsensical replies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent, characterized by natural conversational pacing and acceptable brief overlaps.\n\n*   **Pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. Most transitions are immediate or involve very brief, natural pauses (around 1 second), which are typical in conversational speech.\n*   **Overlaps:**\n    *   At [00:17 - 00:24], Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. This overlap is brief (1 second, from 00:17 to 00:18), and Speaker B explicitly acknowledges it (\"Sorry to interrupt\"). This is a natural, conversational interruption, not a disruptive prolonged overlap.\n    *   At [00:49 - 00:52], Speaker B begins speaking while Speaker A is finishing her sentence. This overlap is also brief (1 second, from 00:49 to 00:50). This type of overlap often indicates eager participation or slight misjudging of turn-taking, which is natural and does not hinder the flow of conversation.\n\nNeither of the overlaps is prolonged or harmful to the interaction. The turn-taking feels very natural and fluid.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--43280",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I'm so relieved that I don't have to drink my coffee black anymore.\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Why, what happened?\n[00:05 - 00:14] Speaker A: I just got tired of the bitter taste, you know? Plus, I feel like I need the extra boost of energy that coffee gives me in the mornings, especially\n[00:13 - 00:20] Speaker B: Oh, speaking of energy, have you tried any of those energy drinks? They might give you that extra boost without the bitterness.\n[00:21 - 00:33] Speaker A: I have, but I prefer coffee because it's more of a ritual for me in the morning. Anyway, I was going to say that now I can add some cream and sugar to my coffee, it's much more enjoyable to drink.\n[00:33 - 00:38] Speaker B: That makes sense. I'm glad you found a way to make your coffee drinking experience more enjoyable.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance.\n- Speaker B's initial \"Why, what happened?\" (00:03 - 00:05) is a direct and logical follow-up to Speaker A's opening statement, seeking clarification.\n- Speaker A's response (00:05 - 00:14) explains the reason (bitter taste) and introduces a related concept (need for energy boost).\n- Speaker B then logically picks up on the \"energy\" point (\"Oh, speaking of energy...\") and offers a relevant suggestion (energy drinks) that addresses both the energy need and the bitterness problem, showing active listening and an attempt to be helpful (00:13 - 00:20). While it's a slight tangent, it's coherent with the preceding discussion.\n- Speaker A's subsequent turn (00:21 - 00:33) directly addresses Speaker B's suggestion (\"I have, but I prefer coffee...\") and then skillfully pivots back to their original intended point about how they solved the problem (\"Anyway, I was going to say that now I can add some cream and sugar...\"). This shows excellent conversational management, acknowledging the side topic while returning to the main thread.\n- Speaker B's final remark (\"That makes sense. I'm glad you found a way...\") is a perfect concluding response, showing understanding and support for Speaker A's solution.\nThere are no instances of logical inconsistency or significant topic derailment. The conversation flows naturally and coherently.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The transitions are quick and natural, mimicking real-life conversation. For example, Speaker B responds almost immediately to Speaker A at [00:03].\n- There is one brief overlap detected:\n    - [00:13 - 00:14]: Speaker B begins speaking one second before Speaker A finishes their sentence. This is a very common and natural type of overlap in engaged conversation, indicating active listening and a readiness to contribute, rather than an interruption. It does not disrupt the flow or clarity of the dialogue.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking contribute to a highly fluid and natural-sounding interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--478",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey, how's it going?\n[00:01 - 00:04] Speaker B: It's good! I had an awesome workout yesterday.\n[00:05 - 00:08] Speaker A: Wow, that's great! What kind of workout did you do?\n[00:08 - 00:09] Speaker B: I ran eight miles.\n[00:10 - 00:17] Speaker A: Ooh, that's intense! I used to be an athlete in high school and college. Are you feeling it sore today,\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but what sport did you play in high school and college?\n[00:20 - 00:25] Speaker A: I was a sprinter. Anyway, are you feeling it today after running eight miles?\n[00:25 - 00:28] Speaker B: A little bit, but it was totally worth it.\n[00:28 - 00:29] Speaker A: Do you have a routine?\n[00:30 - 00:32] Speaker B: Yeah, I go running at least three times a week.\n[00:33 - 00:36] Speaker A: Wow! I love running. Did you run cross-country in high school?\n[00:37 - 00:38] Speaker B: Yeah, I was pretty good.\n[00:38 - 00:42] Speaker A: That's impressive. What was your favorite distance to run back\n[00:41 - 00:45] Speaker B: Actually, before I forget, do you have any tips for improving my running form?\n[00:46 - 00:52] Speaker A: Sure, I can share some tips. But first, I was asking about your favorite distance to run in high school?\n[00:52 - 00:55] Speaker B: Oh, right! I ran the three-mile race.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance.\n- **Logical Consistency:** Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one. Speaker B introduces a workout, Speaker A asks for details, Speaker B provides them, and the conversation naturally progresses to Speaker A's athletic past, Speaker B's running routine, and their shared interest in running.\n- **Topic Coherence:** The overall topic of \"running\" or \"athletic experience\" is maintained throughout the conversation. Even when Speaker B interjects (at 00:16 and 00:41), their interjections are directly related to information just provided by Speaker A or the current overarching topic. Speaker A skillfully manages these slight digressions by either answering the new question and then re-orienting (at 00:20) or explicitly acknowledging and deferring the new question to return to the previous one (at 00:46). This demonstrates excellent topic management and coherence. There are no instances of irrelevant or off-topic responses.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- **Extended Overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps detected:\n    - At `[00:16 - 00:20]`, Speaker B starts speaking (`Sorry to jump in...`) while Speaker A is finishing their sentence (`...today,`). This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker B's \"Sorry to jump in\" explicitly acknowledges the overlap, indicating politeness and awareness, rather than being disruptive.\n    - At `[00:41 - 00:45]`, Speaker B starts speaking (`Actually, before I forget...`) while Speaker A is finishing their sentence (`...run back`). This is also a 1-second overlap. Again, Speaker B's phrase \"before I forget\" signals an urgent thought that they are interjecting, which is a natural conversational pattern.\nBoth overlaps are brief (1 second each) and are interactionally managed by Speaker B's explicit cues. According to the criteria, \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable,\" and these certainly fall into that category, indicating active engagement rather than disruption.\n- **Long Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The pauses range from 0 to 1 second, which are perfectly natural and contribute to a smooth conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--127086",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: Hi, Aram. I wanted to get to know you better, so I was wondering what your hobbies are?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker B: Well, I love skiing. It's always been one of my favorite things to challenge myself\n[00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A: Skiing, really? I've never been skiing before. How did you get into it?\n[00:14 - 00:22] Speaker B: My family used to go on ski trips when I was younger and I just loved it. After that, we would go every year and I just kept getting better and better at tackling more\n[00:21 - 00:25] Speaker A: That sounds amazing! Do you still go skiing often?\n[00:25 - 00:31] Speaker B: Yeah, whenever I get the chance. I also love hiking and being outdoors in general. But skiing is definitely my favorite thing to do.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance. Speaker B consistently answers Speaker A's questions directly and elaborates appropriately on the topic of hobbies, specifically skiing. Speaker A's questions are also highly relevant, building naturally on Speaker B's previous responses, showing active listening and a desire to learn more. The conversation maintains logical consistency and topic coherence throughout, flowing smoothly from the initial inquiry about hobbies to a deeper dive into skiing and other outdoor activities.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n- [00:08 - 00:13] Speaker A starts at 0:08 while Speaker B ends at 0:09. This is a 1-second overlap.\n- [00:21 - 00:25] Speaker A starts at 0:21 while Speaker B ends at 0:22. This is a 1-second overlap.\nBoth overlaps are very short (1 second) and fall within the acceptable range for natural conversation, not appearing prolonged or disruptive. There are no noticeable long pauses between turns. The turn-taking feels fluid and natural, indicating good conversational rhythm.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--448",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What are you doing this Saturday, Gene?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Well, first thing in the morning I'm going to take my driving test. I've\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: Oh, you're taking your driving test? I thought you had a driver's license.\n[00:09 - 00:18] Speaker B: No, I've never needed one. I've always lived in Boston and it's easy to get around on public transportation. But now I'm taking a job in Los Angeles, so\n[00:17 - 00:20] Speaker A: Los Angeles? That's a big move! Congratulations on the new job.\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: Thanks. But everyone knows that to live in LA you have to drive. So I've been taking lessons and I'm going to take my test tomorrow.\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker A: Are you planning to buy a car once you pass your test?\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker B: Yes, I've already picked out the car. I want a twenty sixteen Honda Accord.\n[00:36 - 00:38] Speaker A: Oh, that's a nice looking car.\n[00:38 - 00:43] Speaker B: It is. But I'm not buying it for that reason. It has the safety features that I want.\n[00:43 - 00:44] Speaker A: Such as?\n[00:44 - 00:50] Speaker B: Well, it has a back view camera. As a new driver, I feel more comfortable with that than with just a back view mirror.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining strong topic coherence.\n*   Speaker B directly answers Speaker A's initial question about Saturday plans.\n*   Speaker A's follow-up about the driving test is a logical reaction to B's revelation.\n*   Speaker B then provides a clear explanation for needing a license, introducing the move to Los Angeles, which is a coherent development.\n*   Speaker A's reaction to the LA move (congratulations) is appropriate and relevant.\n*   Speaker B connects the LA move back to the driving test, maintaining consistency.\n*   The subsequent questions and answers about buying a car and its features naturally flow from the discussion about driving in LA.\nThere are no instances of irrelevant tangents, misunderstandings, or logical inconsistencies. The conversation progresses smoothly and purposefully.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n*   There are no long pauses between speaker turns; the conversation flows at a natural, engaging pace.\n*   There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    *   `[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A:` starts overlapping `[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B:` at 0:04. This is a 2-second overlap where Speaker A interjects with surprise and a question, cutting off Speaker B's incomplete thought (\"I've\"). This indicates active listening and engagement rather than disruption.\n    *   `[00:17 - 00:20] Speaker A:` starts overlapping `[00:09 - 00:18] Speaker B:` at 0:17. This is a 1-second overlap where Speaker A reacts to the new information (\"Los Angeles\") with excitement. Speaker B's \"so\" is cut off, but A's interjection is a natural, empathetic response.\nBoth overlaps are brief and contribute to the naturalness and dynamism of the conversation, rather than hindering comprehension. They do not constitute \"extended overlaps.\"\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--21866",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: I don't know what I was thinking! I just saw the dress and I had to have it.\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: But Fabricio, you can't afford that dress! It's $500! How are you planning to pay for it?\n[00:08 - 00:17] Speaker A: I know, but I couldn't help myself. It's so beautiful and I've been wanting it for months. I was thinking maybe I could return it if I realize I\n[00:16 - 00:25] Speaker B: Return it? That might be a good idea. But honestly, this is why you need to learn to control your impulses! If you keep spending money like this, you're going to end up in debt.\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker A: I know, but it's so hard when something is right in front of me and I really want it.\n[00:32 - 00:39] Speaker B: Maybe you should try saving up for things instead of buying them right away. That way, you'll be less likely to impulse buy and get into debt.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate high logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A introduces the impulsive purchase of a dress, and Speaker B immediately questions its affordability and the payment plan, which is a direct and logical follow-up. Speaker A's subsequent responses explain their impulse and propose a solution (returning it), which Speaker B acknowledges before pivoting to the broader issue of impulse control and debt. Speaker A then acknowledges the difficulty, leading Speaker B to offer a constructive solution (saving up). Each turn builds upon the previous one, maintaining a clear narrative flow about financial responsibility and impulse buying. There are no irrelevant diversions or inconsistencies in the dialogue's progression.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two instances of brief overlaps: [00:03 - 00:04] (1 second) and [00:16 - 00:17] (1 second). These are short and can be considered natural, brief interjections rather than prolonged or harmful overlaps. Similarly, the pauses between turns are minimal: [00:25 - 00:26] (1 second) and [00:31 - 00:32] (1 second). These short gaps are natural conversational pauses, allowing for slight processing time or turn-taking, and do not indicate a lack of fluency or responsiveness. The conversation flows smoothly without any extended silences or disruptive, prolonged overlaps.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--140296",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, I made you some tea.\n[00:02 - 00:04] Speaker B: Oh, thank you! Chamomile, right?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: Yeah. I know it's your favorite.\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker B: You know me so well. This is exactly what I needed today. Thank you, Jolene.\n[00:12 - 00:17] Speaker A: Anytime. I'm just glad I could help. So, how's your day going?\n[00:17 - 00:20] Speaker B: It's been rough. I'm just really stressed out lately.\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker A: That sounds tough. Do you want to talk about it?\n[00:24 - 00:32] Speaker B: Yeah, I think I do. It's just been a lot of things building up, you know? Work is really stressful and my personal life has been in a bit of a mess. I\n[00:31 - 00:40] Speaker A: Sorry to cut you off, but when you say your personal life is in a rut, do you mean relationships, or is it more about your own sense of fulfillment?\n[00:41 - 00:50] Speaker B: It's more about my own sense of fulfillment. I just feel like I'm stuck in a routine, and it's making everything else feel heavier. I was going to say that it's been hard to find motivation lately.\n[00:50 - 01:02] Speaker A: I get that. When everything feels like a routine, it can be really draining. Have you thought about making small changes to break the monotony, like picking up a new hobby or changing your daily routine?\n[01:03 - 01:13] Speaker B: I have, but it's hard to find the energy to even start something new. I just don't know how to make it all stop, you know? How do you turn off your brain when it feels like everything is crashing down on you?\n[01:13 - 01:29] Speaker A: Well, first of all, you're doing the right thing by talking to me about it. Just getting everything off your chest can help a lot. And secondly, have you tried relaxation techniques? Like deep breathing or meditation? Sometimes,\n[01:28 - 01:35] Speaker B: Deep breathing, yeah. But honestly, they never seem to work for me. I feel like I need something more, something that really clicks for me.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A consistently responds to Speaker B's emotional state and expressed problems, offering validation, clarifying questions, and relevant suggestions. For example, when Speaker B mentions being \"stressed out,\" Speaker A immediately asks if they want to talk about it. When Speaker B talks about their \"personal life has been in a bit of a mess,\" Speaker A strategically interrupts to clarify what \"mess\" means, leading to a deeper understanding of the issue (lack of fulfillment). Speaker B's responses are always directly related to Speaker A's previous statements or questions, building naturally on the conversation's topic of stress, routine, and coping mechanisms. There are no instances where a speaker introduces an unrelated topic or provides an illogical response. The conversation progresses smoothly from initial pleasantries to a supportive discussion about Speaker B's well-being.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural and appropriate. There are two instances of brief overlap:\n1.  `[00:31 - 00:40] Speaker A:` overlaps with `[00:24 - 00:32] Speaker B:`. Speaker A starts speaking one second before Speaker B finishes. Speaker A immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to cut you off\"), which indicates awareness and makes the overlap feel intentional for clarification, not disruptive. This is a natural, brief overlap for interjection.\n2.  `[01:28 - 01:35] Speaker B:` overlaps with `[01:13 - 01:29] Speaker A:`. Speaker B starts speaking one second before Speaker A finishes. Speaker B is reacting to Speaker A's suggestion of \"deep breathing\" by immediately stating their experience with it. This is a common and natural brief overlap demonstrating engagement and recognition of a specific point in the preceding turn.\n\nThere are also small pauses (1 second) between some turns (e.g., 00:20-00:21, 00:40-00:41, 01:02-01:03). These are perfectly acceptable and contribute to the natural rhythm of conversation, not indicating any breakdown in fluency or communication. No prolonged pauses are detected.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--118479",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:05] Speaker A: I'm really sorry about what I did. I know it was a mistake and I feel bad about it.\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker B: Why did you do it?\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: I don't know. It was a moment of weakness, I guess. I wasn't thinking clearly and I made a rash decision\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker B: But you must have had some reason, even if it was just in the moment. Can you think of anything specific that triggered it?\n[00:19 - 00:35] Speaker A: Maybe it was stress or feeling overwhelmed. But I realize now that it doesn't excuse what I did. I made a bad decision, and I need to figure out how to make things right again. But I promise that I'll do whatever it takes to make amends.\n[00:35 - 00:40] Speaker B: I hope so. Because what you did was really wrong and it hurt a lot of people who\n[00:39 - 00:50] Speaker A: I know, and that's what makes this even harder to accept. I never wanted to hurt anyone, and I'm truly sorry for that. I'll do everything I can to make it up to everyone involved.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building upon the conversation's theme of apology, explanation, and reconciliation.\n- Speaker B's initial question \"Why did you do it?\" is a direct and logical follow-up to Speaker A's apology.\n- Speaker A's subsequent explanations, though initially vague (\"moment of weakness\"), are refined to \"stress or feeling overwhelmed,\" showing an attempt to provide more detail as prompted.\n- Speaker A's commitment to making amends and expressing remorse is consistently maintained and reinforced.\n- Speaker B's reactions, such as \"I hope so\" and emphasizing the hurt caused, are natural responses to Speaker A's apologies and promises.\nThe topic coherence is strong; the dialogue remains focused on the \"mistake\" Speaker A made, its reasons, and the efforts to rectify it, without veering off-topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are no long pauses between speaker turns that would indicate a breakdown in the conversation flow or difficulty in turn-taking. The brief overlaps at [00:13 - 00:14] (1 second) and [00:39 - 00:40] (1 second) are short and natural, typical of conversational speech where one speaker anticipates the end of another's turn or interjects briefly to acknowledge or respond. These are not \"extended overlaps\" that would be considered harmful; rather, they contribute to the dynamic and natural rhythm of the exchange, showing active listening and engagement from both participants.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--328",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Yes. Can I help you?\n[00:02 - 00:10] Speaker B: Yes. You see, I've bought this personal stereo at your shop 3 days ago. And I'm afraid it hasn't really matched up to what I was expecting in\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker A: I'm sorry to hear that. Could you tell me what exactly is the issue?\n[00:13 - 00:17] Speaker B: Well, first of all, there is this large scratch across the front of it.\n[00:17 - 00:19] Speaker A: But you should have noticed that when you bought it.\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker B: But it was in the box and all sealed up.\n[00:22 - 00:31] Speaker A: Well, I'm sorry, but it really is your responsibility to check the goods when you buy them. How are we to know that it wasn't you who made the scratch after\n[00:30 - 00:37] Speaker B: Scratch? I understand your point, but that's not the main issue here. The more pressing problem is actually something else.\n[00:37 - 00:38] Speaker A: And what is that?\n[00:38 - 00:43] Speaker B: Look. It says here that the noise from it should be undetectable by other people.\n[00:43 - 00:44] Speaker A: Yes, that's right.\n[00:45 - 00:49] Speaker B: But people can hear it, and it's really embarrassing on the bus and underground.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Speaker A consistently acknowledges Speaker B's points and asks relevant follow-up questions (\"Could you tell me what exactly is the issue?\", \"And what is that?\"). Speaker B provides clear explanations and, importantly, manages the conversation effectively by acknowledging Speaker A's point about the scratch (\"I understand your point\") before redirecting to the \"more pressing problem.\" This shows good topic coherence, as the conversation stays focused on the stereo's issues while progressing logically from one problem to another. Even the argumentative parts are relevant to the customer complaint scenario.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is good. There are two instances of overlaps:\n1.  `[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker A:` starts at 0:09 while `Speaker B:` ends at 0:10. This is a 1-second overlap. Speaker A interjects slightly before Speaker B finishes their sentence. This is a brief overlap and common in natural conversation, indicating engagement rather than disruption.\n2.  `[00:30 - 00:37] Speaker B:` starts at 0:30 while `Speaker A:` ends at 0:31. This is also a 1-second overlap, with Speaker B cutting Speaker A off mid-sentence. While an interruption, it's brief in duration and serves a purpose (to redirect the conversation).\n\nNeither of these overlaps is \"extended\" or \"prolonged,\" and they do not significantly harm the flow. There are no long pauses between turns. The pacing feels natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--691",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I really like the work of Anne Sexton. Do you like her poems?\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker B: Not really. They're okay, but I think they're overrated. I prefer the work of T.S. Eliot.\n[00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A: I'm not as familiar with T.S. Eliot, but I'll give him a shot. What are your favorite poems by him? Any\n[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker B: Sorry, I just wanted to mention, if you're interested in T.S. Eliot, you might also enjoy reading \"The Waste Land.\" It's a bit complex but very rewarding.\n[00:24 - 00:30] Speaker A: Thanks for the recommendation! I'll check that out too. But you didn't finish telling me your favorite poems by him.\n[00:30 - 00:37] Speaker B: Well, the most famous is \"The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.\" It's about the anxiety of modern life\n[00:36 - 00:42] Speaker A: Oh, that sounds intriguing! But can you explain a bit more about what kind of anxiety it deals with?\n[00:43 - 00:49] Speaker B: It's about the anxiety of looking forward to something. I see, I can see why you like that. It is so relatable.\n[00:49 - 00:53] Speaker A: It really is! I wish I could write poetry like that.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong logical consistency and topic coherence for the most part. Speakers A and B engage in a natural conversation about poetry, smoothly transitioning from Anne Sexton to T.S. Eliot. Speaker A's prompt at [00:24 - 00:30] to remind Speaker B to share favorite poems, rather than just recommendations, shows good conversational tracking.\n\nThe only slight point of contention for response relevance occurs at [00:43 - 00:49] when Speaker B responds to Speaker A's question about the *kind* of anxiety in \"The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.\" Speaker B's initial answer, \"It's about the anxiety of looking forward to something,\" is rather vague and doesn't fully elaborate on the specific nuances of the poem's themes (e.g., indecision, social anxiety, ennui). Furthermore, the subsequent addition \"I see, I can see why you like that. It is so relatable\" pivots from explaining the poem's content to speculating about Speaker A's personal preference, which is a slight deviation from directly answering the \"what kind of anxiety\" question. While not a complete breakdown in logical consistency or topic coherence, this particular response is not as precise or entirely appropriate as the rest of the dialogue. However, it's not a \"significant issue\" that derails the conversation; Speaker A accepts it and continues the interaction naturally.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns. The gaps are either zero seconds or one second, indicating a very natural and responsive flow.\nThere are also no extended overlaps in conversation.\n[00:15 - 00:23] Speaker B overlaps with [00:09 - 00:16] Speaker A for only one second (00:15-00:16).\n[00:36 - 00:42] Speaker A overlaps with [00:30 - 00:37] Speaker B for only one second (00:36-00:37).\nThese brief, one-second overlaps are natural and common in spontaneous conversation, indicating active listening and turn-taking without being disruptive or harmful to the flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--435",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Do you like cooking?\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: No, I don't like it at all. I've never cooked anything. Do you like cooking?\n[00:05 - 00:10] Speaker A: Sure! I'm an awesome cook. My chicken parmesan never fails to\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but can you really teach me how to cook? I've always wanted to learn.\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker A: Of course! Why don't we go to the grocery store and pick up the ingredients together.\n[00:20 - 00:21] Speaker B: Sure! That sounds great.\n[00:22 - 00:23] Speaker A: How about tonight?\n[00:24 - 00:27] Speaker B: I don't know. Maybe I can try cooking tomorrow night.\n[00:27 - 00:31] Speaker A: Let's see what we have in the house right now. I'm making some fried rice.\n[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker B: What's your secret for fried rice? Is\n[00:33 - 00:37] Speaker A: Actually, I wanted to ask, how did you come up with your chicken parmesan recipe?\n[00:38 - 00:53] Speaker B: Oh, it's a family recipe. But for the fried rice, here! Try this! First, add half the rice to a pan on the stove and stir. Then add soy sauce and sugar. Stir it again. Then add the rest of the rice to the pan. Add the rest of the ingredients. Stir. Serve!\n[00:53 - 00:57] Speaker A: That's amazing. How did you come up with that recipe?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe response relevance starts strong, with speakers coherently following each other's points regarding cooking preferences and plans for teaching/learning to cook.\nHowever, a significant issue arises at **[00:33 - 00:37]**. Speaker B asks about Speaker A's \"secret for fried rice\" (relevant to A's prior statement about making fried rice). Speaker A completely ignores this question and instead asks, \"Actually, I wanted to ask, how did you come up with your chicken parmesan recipe?\" This is a major logical inconsistency and topic derailment for several reasons:\n1.  It ignores Speaker B's immediate, relevant question.\n2.  Speaker B never mentioned a chicken parmesan recipe; Speaker A was the one who previously mentioned their *own* chicken parmesan at **[00:05 - 00:10]**. This indicates a failure in logical consistency and memory within the conversation.\n3.  While Speaker B tries to recover by briefly addressing the chicken parmesan before returning to the fried rice topic, Speaker A's initial misstep is a clear breakdown in coherence.\nThere is also a minor abrupt shift by Speaker A at **[00:27 - 00:31]**. After Speaker B suggests \"tomorrow night\" for cooking (in response to A's grocery store suggestion), Speaker A pivots to \"Let's see what we have in the house right now. I'm making some fried rice\" without explicitly acknowledging B's \"tomorrow\" suggestion or the previous grocery store plan. This is a slight break in the flow of the *plan*, though it keeps within the general topic of cooking. The primary issue remains the chicken parmesan misattribution and topic jump.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally good.\nThere are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  **[00:09 - 00:14]**: Speaker B overlaps Speaker A for approximately 1 second (\"Sorry to interrupt, but...\"). This is a natural, acknowledged interruption, not an extended or harmful overlap.\n2.  **[00:33 - 00:37]**: Speaker A overlaps Speaker B for approximately 1 second. While this overlap occurs during a significant relevance issue, the overlap itself is brief and not prolonged.\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns; all pauses are 1 second or less, which is acceptable and natural in conversation.\nTherefore, the interactional fluency does not show significant issues.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--77405",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I don't know. I feel like I'm losing a part of myself.\n[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: What do you mean?\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: I used to be able to do things. I was special. Now I can't even light a fire without using a match or\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: Wait, you mean your powers are completely gone? Have you tried anything else to see if they might come back?\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker A: I have, but nothing works. It's like a part of me has just vanished.\n[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: You're still special, Stephon. Just because you don't have your powers doesn't mean you're not special.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates excellent response relevance and logical consistency.\n*   **[00:04 - 00:05] Speaker B: \"What do you mean?\"** is a direct and logical follow-up to Speaker A's initial vague emotional statement.\n*   **[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: \"I used to be able to do things. I was special. Now I can't even light a fire without using a match or\"** provides concrete context and explanation for their earlier statement, maintaining topic coherence.\n*   **[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker B: \"Wait, you mean your powers are completely gone? Have you tried anything else to see if they might come back?\"** logically infers \"powers\" from A's description of being \"special\" and \"light a fire,\" and asks relevant follow-up questions.\n*   **[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker A: \"I have, but nothing works. It's like a part of me has just vanished.\"** directly answers B's question and reiterates the emotional core of their struggle.\n*   **[00:21 - 00:27] Speaker B: \"You're still special, Stephon. Just because you don't have your powers doesn't mean you're not special.\"** is a highly relevant and supportive response that directly addresses A's feeling of no longer being special, reinforcing the core theme of the conversation.\n\nThe conversation flows naturally, with each turn building upon the previous one, and the topic remains consistent throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n*   There are no long pauses between turns. Most transitions are immediate or involve a very brief, natural pause (e.g., 1 second between [00:03] and [00:04]).\n*   There is one brief overlap: Speaker B starts at [00:11] while Speaker A ends at [00:12]. This is a 1-second overlap. Given that Speaker A's sentence trails off with \"or,\" Speaker B's interjection feels natural, indicating engagement and an eager attempt to clarify, rather than a disruptive interruption. It is not an extended or harmful overlap.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking feel natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--530",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: I learned about the Soviet Union in history last week.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker B: What did you learn?\n[00:05 - 00:09] Speaker A: Mostly about their economy and culture. They seem like a fascinating place!\n[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B: What did you think about how they were governed and\n[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker A: Sorry to cut in, but do you mean how they were governed or how their policies were implemented?\n[00:17 - 00:26] Speaker B: Oh, I meant how they were governed. It's interesting how they turned their culture and economy into a completely different form. They seem like a place that is an extreme version of capitalism.\n[00:27 - 00:38] Speaker A: Actually, they were more of an extreme version of socialism, but I can see how the similarities with capitalism are striking. The economy and cultural influence were really shaped by\n[00:37 - 00:44] Speaker B: Yes, their cultural influence was significant, but can you elaborate on how their economy differed from other European countries at the time?\n[00:44 - 00:51] Speaker A: Certainly. The economy and cultural influence were really different from other countries at the time, especially in Europe.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency.\n1.  **Topic Coherence:** The conversation consistently revolves around the Soviet Union, touching upon its economy, culture, governance, and historical context. There are no sudden topic shifts.\n2.  **Logical Consistency:**\n    *   Speaker B's initial question \"What did you learn?\" directly follows Speaker A's statement about learning about the Soviet Union.\n    *   Speaker A's response about \"economy and culture\" is a direct answer.\n    *   Speaker B's follow-up about \"how they were governed\" naturally expands the scope of discussion.\n    *   Speaker A's clarification (\"Sorry to cut in, but do you mean how they were governed or how their policies were implemented?\") is a crucial and logical step to ensure mutual understanding, demonstrating strong conversational repair.\n    *   Speaker B's factual error about the Soviet Union being an \"extreme version of capitalism\" is a content-level inconsistency, but the *response itself* is logically consistent with the flow, building on the previous discussion of governance and economy.\n    *   Speaker A's correction (\"Actually, they were more of an extreme version of socialism...\") is relevant and logically corrects the previous statement while maintaining politeness (\"but I can see how the similarities with capitalism are striking\"). This shows logical progression and conflict resolution.\n    *   Speaker B's subsequent question about how the economy differed from other European countries is a direct, relevant follow-up to A's points about economy and cultural influence.\n    *   Speaker A's final response reiterates the difference in economy and cultural influence, directly addressing B's elaborated question.\nAll turns build logically upon the previous ones, ensuring a coherent and relevant discussion.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is very high.\n1.  **Overlaps:** There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n    *   **[00:11 - 00:16] Speaker A** overlaps with **[00:10 - 00:12] Speaker B**. Speaker A explicitly apologizes (\"Sorry to cut in\"), indicating awareness and natural conversational repair. This overlap serves the clear purpose of clarification and is brief (1 second of direct overlap), falling under \"brief overlaps... are acceptable.\"\n    *   **[00:37 - 00:44] Speaker B** overlaps with **[00:27 - 00:38] Speaker A**. This is also a very brief overlap (1 second of direct overlap) where Speaker B interjects to acknowledge A's point and then ask a specific follow-up question. This is a common and natural way for speakers to take turns and guide the conversation, especially when eager to ask a question related to the current utterance.\nBoth overlaps are short, purposeful, and do not disrupt the flow; rather, they make the conversation sound natural and dynamic. They are not \"prolonged overlapping turns.\"\n2.  **Pauses:** There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns. The transitions between speakers are smooth and timely.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking feel very natural and fluid.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--145664",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:06] Speaker A: Hey, Bauer! I'm so glad I ran into you. I've been meaning to talk to you about your apartment. It's\n[00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B: Oh, yeah? What about it?\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: Well, it's just that it's old and small, and I think it's time for a bigger place\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker B: Time for a change? You think so?\n[00:13 - 00:19] Speaker A: Yeah, I do. Plus, your lease is up soon, so it's the perfect time to make a move.\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B: Hmm. I hadn't really thought about it, but you may be right.\n[00:23 - 00:30] Speaker A: Great! So why don't we go look at some new places? I'm sure we can find something that you'll love.\n[00:30 - 00:31] Speaker B: Alright, let's do it!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue consistently demonstrate high relevance and logical consistency. Speaker B's initial \"Oh, yeah? What about it?\" directly addresses Speaker A's stated intention to talk about the apartment. Speaker A then elaborates on the apartment's condition and the idea of moving. Speaker B's follow-up questions (\"Time for a change? You think so?\") are coherent and seek clarification, showing engagement with the topic. Speaker A provides further justification, which Speaker B acknowledges naturally. Finally, Speaker A proposes a next step that logically follows Speaker B's agreement, and Speaker B readily accepts. The conversation progresses smoothly from initiating the topic to proposing an action, with each turn building upon the previous one without any irrelevant diversions or inconsistencies.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are no long pauses between speaker turns, indicating a natural and continuous flow of conversation. There are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  [00:05 - 00:07] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A for 1 second. This occurs as Speaker B interjects with \"Oh, yeah? What about it?\" while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence \"It's...\". This is a common and natural conversational phenomenon, indicating eagerness or active listening, and is not a prolonged or harmful overlap.\n2.  [00:11 - 00:13] Speaker B overlaps Speaker A for 1 second. This happens when Speaker B asks \"Time for a change? You think so?\" right as Speaker A concludes their thought. Again, this is a brief, natural interjection that shows engagement rather than disruption.\nBoth overlaps are brief and contribute to the dynamic and natural feel of the conversation, rather than detracting from it.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--86498",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hi there, are you here to buy my van?\n[00:02 - 00:08] Speaker B: Hi! Yes, I am. I saw your ad on Craigslist and I'm very interested in the condition\n[00:07 - 00:14] Speaker A: Sorry, before we get into that, I just want to mention that the van is in great condition and it's a great deal.\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker B: That's what I wanted to talk to you about. I was hoping to negotiate the price down a bit.\n[00:19 - 00:25] Speaker A: Well, the price is firm but I'm open to negotiation. What did you have in mind?\n[00:25 - 00:30] Speaker B: Well, I was thinking maybe $1,000 less than the asking price. What do you think about\n[00:29 - 00:38] Speaker A: Hold on, I understand where you're coming from, but $1,000 is quite a significant difference. Let me think about it and see if we can come to an agreement.\n[00:39 - 00:43] Speaker B: Alright, that sounds fair. I'll give you a call tomorrow and we can talk about it some more.\n[00:43 - 00:46] Speaker A: Sounds good! Thanks for coming by.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker B's initial response directly addresses Speaker A's opening question. Although Speaker A interrupts Speaker B at 0:07, their statement about the van's condition and \"great deal\" is still related to the implicit topic of selling/buying and what Speaker B was about to discuss (condition/price). Speaker B then pivots smoothly to negotiation, which Speaker A is open to, despite claiming the price is \"firm\" – this slight contradiction is common in sales and doesn't break coherence. The subsequent negotiation turns are clear, relevant, and logically flow from one speaker to the next, culminating in an agreement to follow up. No abrupt topic shifts or misunderstandings are observed.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good. There are two instances of overlap:\n1.  **[00:07 - 00:08] Speaker A over Speaker B:** Speaker A begins speaking at 0:07 while Speaker B is finishing \"condition\" at 0:08. This is a very brief overlap (approximately 1 second). Speaker A uses a discourse marker (\"Sorry, before we get into that\") to acknowledge the interruption, which makes it sound natural and polite, rather than disruptive.\n2.  **[00:29 - 00:30] Speaker A over Speaker B:** Speaker A starts at 0:29 while Speaker B is finishing \"about\" at 0:30. Again, this is a very brief overlap (approximately 1 second). Speaker A uses \"Hold on\" as a natural interjection, indicating they are taking the floor.\n\nBoth overlaps are short, natural, and do not hinder comprehension or the flow of the conversation. There are no prolonged pauses between turns, indicating a smooth, responsive interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--409",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: How are you doing today?\n[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B: I've been feeling really tired lately. Do you think I should consider changing\n[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A: Sorry to interrupt, but have you been getting enough sleep? Sometimes fatigue is just due to lack of rest.\n[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B: That's a good point. I have been sleeping poorly. Do you think I should see a doctor?\n[00:17 - 00:26] Speaker A: I'd definitely recommend seeing a doctor if you have any concerns about your health. I always make an appointment with my doctor if I start to notice persistent\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker B: I agree, it's better to be safe. By the way, do you have any tips for improving sleep quality?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and topic coherence.\n1.  **[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B:** Directly answers Speaker A's opening question and immediately introduces a related personal concern (tiredness) that logically follows from \"How are you doing?\".\n2.  **[00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A:** Addresses Speaker B's concern about fatigue by suggesting a common and relevant cause (lack of sleep). This is a logical follow-up to B's statement.\n3.  **[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B:** Acknowledges Speaker A's point as valid (\"That's a good point\") and confirms its relevance to their situation. The subsequent question about seeing a doctor is a logical next step when health concerns arise from poor sleep.\n4.  **[00:17 - 00:26] Speaker A:** Directly answers Speaker B's question about seeing a doctor with a recommendation and provides personal context, which is relevant support.\n5.  **[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker B:** Agrees with Speaker A's advice (\"I agree, it's better to be safe\") maintaining logical consistency. The shift to asking for sleep quality tips, while marked with \"By the way,\" is still highly coherent with the ongoing discussion about fatigue and poor sleep. It's a natural progression of the topic rather than an abrupt change.\n\nOverall, the conversation flows logically from one turn to the next, with speakers addressing previous points and maintaining a clear, coherent topic.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very natural and appropriate, demonstrating characteristics of real-time conversation.\n1.  **[00:01 - 00:05] Speaker B & [00:05 - 00:12] Speaker A:** Speaker B's sentence \"I've been feeling really tired lately. Do you think I should consider changing\" is cut off, and Speaker A immediately interjects with \"Sorry to interrupt, but have you been getting enough sleep?\". This indicates a brief overlap or a very quick turn-taking. Speaker A explicitly acknowledging the interruption makes it sound very natural and not disruptive. This is an example of a brief overlap, which the criteria state is acceptable.\n2.  **[00:12 - 00:16] Speaker B & [00:17 - 00:26] Speaker A:** There is a 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn ending at 00:16 and Speaker A's turn starting at 00:17. This is a \"small pause\" and entirely natural, allowing for processing time.\n3.  **[00:17 - 00:26] Speaker A & [00:26 - 00:31] Speaker B:** Speaker A's sentence \"I always make an appointment with my doctor if I start to notice persistent\" is cut off, and Speaker B immediately jumps in with \"I agree, it's better to be safe.\" This indicates another brief overlap or rapid turn-taking, showing responsiveness. Again, this is a brief, natural interruption that contributes to the flow rather than detracting from it.\n\nThere are no extended overlaps or long pauses detected. The brief interruptions and immediate responses contribute to a dynamic and natural conversational rhythm, typical of fluent human interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--405",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:00] Speaker A: Can we talk?\n[00:01 - 00:03] Speaker B: Sure, honey, we're talking now, aren't we?\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker A: You know what I mean.\n[00:05 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yeah. I know.\n[00:07 - 00:12] Speaker A: I want to know where this relationship is going. I'm in love with you and I need to know. . .\n[00:13 - 00:15] Speaker B: You know, I think you're amazing, but\n[00:14 - 00:19] Speaker A: Sorry, but I really need clarity right now. Are we on the same page about our future?\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker B: Honey, I love you so much.\n[00:22 - 00:23] Speaker A: You do?\n[00:23 - 00:25] Speaker B: I love you. And I think you're awesome.\n[00:26 - 00:31] Speaker A: You mentioned I was awesome earlier, but I need to hear more about what you see for us in the future.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker A consistently drives the conversation towards the core topic of the relationship's future and the need for clarity. Speaker B's responses, while sometimes evasive or deflecting from the direct question about the future (e.g., \"Honey, I love you so much\" instead of addressing \"Are we on the same page about our future?\"), are still logically consistent within the emotional context of the conversation. Speaker B uses affection to soften or avoid the direct topic, which is a common conversational strategy and maintains coherence, as Speaker A then responds to this deflection by reiterating the initial question. There are no instances where responses are off-topic or illogical.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent. There are no prolonged pauses between speaker turns; the pauses are brief and natural, allowing for typical conversational rhythm. There is one instance of overlap (Speaker A at [00:14 - 00:19] overlapping with Speaker B at [00:13 - 00:15]). This overlap is brief (1 second) and serves a clear functional purpose: Speaker A interrupts Speaker B to re-assert their urgent need for clarity. This type of brief, purposeful overlap is common in natural conversation and does not hinder the overall flow or understanding. It highlights Speaker A's emotional state and determination to get an answer. Therefore, it does not constitute a \"harmful\" extended overlap.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--85078",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hi, I'm Lyssa.\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Yes, I remember you. You came to my office a few weeks ago about the movie we're planning to\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: Yes, I was hoping to ask if there were any parts available.\n[00:09 - 00:14] Speaker B: We actually just filled all the roles, but I can give you a small part if you'd like.\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker A: Great, I'll take it! What is the part?\n[00:18 - 00:21] Speaker B: You'll be playing a man on the street who gets hit by a car.\n[00:21 - 00:24] Speaker A: Sounds perfect! When do we start rehearsing for\n[00:23 - 00:28] Speaker B: Sorry to cut you off, but just to confirm, are you okay with the physical demands of this role?\n[00:29 - 00:32] Speaker A: Absolutely, I'm ready for it. When do we start shooting?\n[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker B: We start shooting tomorrow.\n[00:34 - 00:38] Speaker A: I'll be there! Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, maintaining a clear and coherent topic throughout the conversation.\n- Speaker B's initial response (00:02-00:06) immediately recognizes Speaker A and contextualizes their previous interaction, setting up the main topic.\n- Speaker A's subsequent question (00:06-00:09) directly addresses their purpose for the meeting, which is followed by Speaker B's relevant offer of a \"small part\" (00:09-00:14).\n- The detailed discussion about the part (\"man on the street who gets hit by a car\") and the clarification regarding physical demands (00:23-00:28) are all highly relevant and logical given the context of casting for a movie.\n- The conversation concludes with scheduling details and expressions of gratitude, maintaining topic coherence until the end. There are no instances of off-topic remarks or illogical jumps in conversation.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is excellent.\n- **Overlaps:** There are two instances of brief overlaps.\n    - At [00:06], Speaker A briefly overlaps Speaker B's last words. This is a very common and natural conversational phenomenon, indicating engagement rather than disruption.\n    - At [00:23], Speaker B cuts off Speaker A with \"Sorry to cut you off...\", which explicitly acknowledges the overlap and is a naturalistic way to interject an important clarification. This is not a \"prolonged overlap\" and contributes to the natural flow rather than detracting from it.\n- **Pauses:** There are small, natural pauses between turns (e.g., 1 second between 00:17 and 00:18, and 00:28 and 00:29). These pauses are not prolonged and allow for natural turn-taking, indicating good conversational pacing.\nOverall, the dialogue flows very smoothly with appropriate turn-taking, and the brief overlaps and small pauses contribute to its naturalness without causing any communication breakdown or awkwardness.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--590",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Are you enjoying history class?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker B: I really am! I'm starting to understand it a little better now\n[00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A: Sorry to jump in, but what exactly is making it easier for you to understand?\n[00:09 - 00:19] Speaker B: Well, the teacher's explanations and the way we discuss events in class really help. Yeah, once you've learned about something a little more, you can look back on it from a different angle and\n[00:18 - 00:23] Speaker A: Perspective, exactly! That's what's so cool. It's like I understand the world a little more.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe responses in this dialogue are highly relevant and demonstrate excellent logical consistency and topic coherence.\n- Speaker B's initial response directly answers Speaker A's opening question.\n- Speaker A's follow-up question immediately after Speaker B's initial statement shows direct engagement and asks for clarification, maintaining logical flow.\n- Speaker B's detailed explanation directly addresses Speaker A's follow-up question.\n- Speaker A's final interjection and completion of Speaker B's thought, followed by their own related reflection, demonstrates deep engagement and builds on the ongoing topic.\nThe conversation stays tightly focused on the topic of understanding history class and the reasons for enjoying it.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very high.\n- There are no long pauses detected between speaker turns; the conversation flows smoothly and naturally.\n- There are two brief overlaps identified:\n    - [00:04 - 00:09] Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B (1 second). Speaker A explicitly apologizes (\"Sorry to jump in\"), which indicates politeness and manages the overlap effectively. This is a natural, non-disruptive, and even polite form of interruption to ask a clarifying question.\n    - [00:18 - 00:23] Speaker A overlaps with Speaker B (1 second). Speaker A is completing Speaker B's sentence (\"Perspective, exactly!\"). This is a highly collaborative and natural form of overlap, indicating close listening and shared understanding, rather than a disruptive interruption. It enhances the sense of rapport and fluency.\nOverall, the overlaps present are brief and serve to enhance, rather than detract from, the natural flow and engagement of the conversation.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--63443",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Hey, Mom. I'm just about finished with my homework.\n[00:03 - 00:06] Speaker B: Good. Let me see it when you're done, so\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Actually, there's one part I found really tricky. Could you help me with it before I show you?\n[00:11 - 00:17] Speaker B: Sure, I can help. But Tyre, this is unacceptable! You didn't even do half of your assignments yet!\n[00:16 - 00:22] Speaker A: I know, I got stuck on that tricky part, and it slowed me down. I'll go finish it up now.\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker B: You better! Now go finish your homework!\n[00:25 - 00:26] Speaker A: Yes, Mom.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous statement, maintaining topic coherence throughout the conversation.\n\n*   Speaker A initiates the topic (homework completion).\n*   Speaker B's initial response ([00:03 - 00:06]) is a direct reaction to A's statement, expecting to review the homework.\n*   Speaker A's subsequent turn ([00:05 - 00:11]) clarifies the situation and asks for help, which logically follows B's expectation of review.\n*   Speaker B's turn at [00:11 - 00:17] initially agrees to help (\"Sure, I can help.\") but then abruptly shifts to a reprimand (\"But Tyre, this is unacceptable! You didn't even do half of your assignments yet!\"). While this seems sudden, it's plausible in a parent-child dynamic, implying that B either just realized the extent of the incomplete work or is reacting to a deeper, unstated context of A's homework habits. Crucially, Speaker A's next response then directly addresses this reprimand, explaining the delay and promising to finish. This re-establishes coherence.\n*   Speaker B's final directive ([00:22 - 00:24]) and Speaker A's compliance ([00:25 - 00:26]) logically conclude the immediate interaction.\n\nDespite the abrupt shift in Speaker B's one turn, the conversation quickly re-aligns, and the overall interaction remains logical and relevant within the context of a parent-child discussion about homework. There are no non-sequiturs or complete topic derailments.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n\n*   **Overlaps:**\n    *   [00:05 - 00:06] Speaker A starts while Speaker B is still speaking. This is a 1-second overlap.\n    *   [00:16 - 00:17] Speaker A starts while Speaker B is still speaking. This is a 1-second overlap.\n    Both overlaps are brief and natural, common in dynamic conversations where one speaker anticipates or jumps in slightly before the other finishes. They do not constitute \"extended overlaps\" that would harm fluency.\n*   **Pauses:**\n    *   The longest pause identified is 1 second between [00:24] (Speaker B ends) and [00:25] (Speaker A starts). This is a very short, natural pause and does not indicate a \"long pause\" that would disrupt the flow.\n\nOverall, the timing of turns, including brief overlaps and short pauses, contributes to a natural and fluent conversational rhythm, consistent with a real-life interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--39",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:04] Speaker A: Maggie, can I borrow your notes for history? I'll return them as soon\n[00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, Mark, but I usually go to the cafeteria and review them. Why not copy them in the library?\n[00:09 - 00:10] Speaker A: OK.\n[00:11 - 00:12] Speaker B: Here you are.\n[00:12 - 00:19] Speaker A: You are a great help, Maggie. I don't quite understand why you need my notes, Mark? You haven't missed any classes.\n[00:20 - 00:24] Speaker B: To be honest, I work in a supermarket from 7 to 10 o'clock every evening.\n[00:24 - 00:33] Speaker A: Oh, I see. So you're pretty tired when you come to class. But what do you usually do in class? I mean, if you're that tired do you\n[00:32 - 00:38] Speaker B: I'm always awake at the beginning, but thirty minutes after class begins I feel sleepy and have trouble keeping my eyes open.\n[00:39 - 00:45] Speaker A: Well, I need someone to study with and you need someone to keep you awake. Can we be study partners?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue generally exhibits good logical consistency and topic coherence, with speakers building on previous turns and maintaining the flow of conversation. However, there is one significant issue in Response Relevance that prevents the dialogue from being consistently appropriate and natural.\n\nAt [00:12 - 00:19], Speaker A (Mark) says, \"You are a great help, Maggie. I don't quite understand why you need my notes, Mark? You haven't missed any classes.\" The first part, thanking Maggie, is relevant. The second part, \"I don't quite understand why you need my notes, Mark?\", is logically inconsistent. Speaker A (Mark) is addressing Speaker B (Maggie), yet the question is phrased as if Mark is asking himself why *he* (Mark) needs *his own* notes, and then stating \"You haven't missed any classes\" which refers to Mark. This is a severe misapplication of pronouns and roles. It should logically be Speaker B (Maggie) asking Speaker A (Mark) \"why *you* (Mark) need *my* (Maggie's) notes?\" The current phrasing makes the sentence nonsensical as uttered by Speaker A.\n\nDespite this major flaw from Speaker A, Speaker B successfully interprets the intended meaning (that Mark needs notes despite not missing classes) and responds relevantly at [00:20 - 00:24] by explaining why Mark *does* need notes. This demonstrates Speaker B's ability to maintain coherence, but it highlights a significant issue in Speaker A's logical consistency within that specific turn. The rest of the conversation maintains excellent relevance and coherence, with logical follow-up questions and answers leading to a clear resolution.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is generally very good.\nThere are two instances of brief overlaps:\n1.  [00:03 - 00:09] Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is still finishing their sentence. Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Sorry to interrupt, Mark,\" which indicates a natural, polite interruption rather than a disruptive talking-over. This brief overlap (1 second) is acceptable and contributes to the natural flow.\n2.  [00:32 - 00:38] Speaker B begins speaking as Speaker A trails off. This overlap (1 second) is also brief and natural, common in conversational turn-taking when one speaker anticipates or completes the other's thought.\n\nThere are no extended overlaps that disrupt the conversation.\nThere are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pace of the conversation seems natural and appropriate.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>1</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 1,
+    "prediction_attempts": 6
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--82131",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Hey, what's up? How are you doing?\n[00:03 - 00:05] Speaker B: Not too bad. Just been busy with work and stuff.\n[00:06 - 00:09] Speaker A: Yeah, I know how that is. So what's been going on?\n[00:10 - 00:16] Speaker B: Well, I've just been feeling kind of stressed out lately. Work has been really busy and I'm just having a hard time keeping up\n[00:16 - 00:21] Speaker A: Are you feeling overwhelmed because of the workload or is it something else that's adding to the stress?\n[00:22 - 00:27] Speaker B: It's mainly the workload. I feel like I'm constantly behind and I'm just not sure how to catch up.\n[00:28 - 00:31] Speaker A: That sounds really tough. Have you talked to your boss about it?\n[00:32 - 00:40] Speaker B: Yeah, I have. But they're just not really understanding. They keep giving me more work and expecting me to finish it all in the same amount of time,\n[00:39 - 00:46] Speaker A: Maybe we need to figure out a way to manage your tasks more effectively. Have you tried prioritizing or delegating some of the work?\n[00:47 - 00:56] Speaker B: I've tried prioritizing, but it still feels like too much. Delegating might help, though. Let's talk to them together and see if we can come up with a plan that works for both of us.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn logically follows the previous one, building on the topic of Speaker B's work stress. Speaker A consistently shows active listening by asking clarifying questions (\"Are you feeling overwhelmed because of the workload...?\"), empathizing (\"That sounds really tough.\"), and offering relevant suggestions or next steps (\"Have you talked to your boss about it?\", \"Maybe we need to figure out a way to manage your tasks more effectively.\"). Speaker B's responses directly address Speaker A's questions and suggestions, providing necessary context and elaborating on their feelings and experiences. The conversation maintains a strong topic coherence from initial greetings to problem identification and collaborative problem-solving.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent. There are no instances of long pauses between speaker turns; the pauses observed are consistently short (around 1 second), which is natural and allows for smooth turn-taking. There are two very brief overlaps (Speaker A starting at 00:16 while B ends at 00:16, and A starting at 00:39 while B ends at 00:40). These are one-second overlaps and fall under the \"brief overlaps in conversation are acceptable\" category, rather than \"extended overlaps.\" They do not disrupt the flow or understanding of the conversation and can be interpreted as signs of active engagement and anticipation in a natural conversation. Overall, the pacing and turn-taking contribute to a very natural and fluent exchange.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--63",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:02] Speaker A: Would you like to go to the movies tonight?\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker B: Well, I just saw a horror movie last night. It almost frightened me to the point\n[00:05 - 00:11] Speaker A: Oh, sorry to interrupt, but I was thinking—maybe we could see something different, like a detective film?\n[00:11 - 00:15] Speaker B: I don't care for a detective film. It also makes me nervous.\n[00:15 - 00:16] Speaker A: How about a comedy?\n[00:17 - 00:20] Speaker B: No, I don't think comedies today are natural or cheerful.\n[00:20 - 00:22] Speaker A: How about a love story then?\n[00:22 - 00:24] Speaker B: No, romance is boring.\n[00:24 - 00:26] Speaker A: What's your opinion?\n[00:26 - 00:28] Speaker B: Let's go to see a war movie, shall we?\n[00:28 - 00:35] Speaker A: Really? I mean, earlier you mentioned that the horror movie almost frightened you to death. Wouldn't a war movie be a bit intense too?\n[00:36 - 00:38] Speaker B: Certainly. Is there anything wrong?",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\n**Response Relevance Analysis:**\nThe dialogue generally maintains good response relevance and topic coherence. Speaker A consistently poses relevant questions and offers suggestions, demonstrating an understanding of Speaker B's stated preferences (or aversions). Speaker A's final turn at [00:28 - 00:35] is particularly strong, as they demonstrate logical consistency by recalling Speaker B's earlier statement about being frightened by a horror movie and questioning the suggestion of a war movie in that context. This shows a high level of engagement and critical thinking within the conversation.\n\nSpeaker B's responses are also mostly relevant, articulating their rejections of various movie genres and finally suggesting a war movie. However, Speaker B's final response at [00:36 - 00:38] (\"Certainly. Is there anything wrong?\") is slightly less logically consistent and somewhat abrupt. When Speaker A points out the potential contradiction between being \"frightened to death\" by a horror movie and suggesting an \"intense\" war movie, Speaker B's response doesn't provide a clear explanation or reconciliation. It comes across as slightly dismissive or defensive rather than engaging with A's valid point about logical consistency. Despite this minor point of inconsistency from Speaker B, the overall flow of the conversation remains coherent, and the participants stay on topic. The dialogue doesn't suffer from significant issues like non-sequiturs or major misunderstandings.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\n**Interactional Fluency Analysis:**\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is very good.\nThere is one brief overlap at [00:05 - 00:11] where Speaker A starts speaking while Speaker B is still finishing their sentence. However, Speaker A immediately acknowledges this with \"Oh, sorry to interrupt,\" which indicates awareness and politeness, making it a very natural and acceptable brief overlap rather than a disruptive or extended one.\nAll pauses between turns are brief (1 second between [0:16-0:17] and [0:35-0:36]). These are natural and do not hinder the flow of conversation. There are no long or prolonged pauses detected.\nOverall, the pacing feels natural and conversational, with no significant issues in terms of extended overlaps or long pauses.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 3
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "PLACES3.5--train--682",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: What do you drive?\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: I don't drive.\n[00:02 - 00:06] Speaker A: But you have to drive. What are you going to do without a car?\n[00:07 - 00:11] Speaker B: I don't need to drive to get places. I can take public transportation or the bus.\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: But public transportation is so inconvenient. I can't imagine relying on it for daily commutes\n[00:17 - 00:20] Speaker B: I actually find it quite convenient. Plus, it saves me a lot of money.\n[00:21 - 00:30] Speaker A: Yeah, and I love cars, but it's just not worth it. A car can easily get overpriced. Plus, public transportation saves a lot of money.\n[00:30 - 00:34] Speaker B: So you are saying cars are overpriced and public transportation saves you money?\n[00:34 - 00:36] Speaker A: Yeah, exactly!\n[00:36 - 00:41] Speaker B: So does a car. You could be paying for gas or maintenance or insurance which can\n[00:40 - 00:46] Speaker A: True, and it's also a lot of work to take care of a car. I can't imagine having to wash it.\n[00:46 - 00:55] Speaker B: Haha, yeah, I guess a car is a lot of work. I wonder if public transportation is cheaper to use if you include the cost of car maintenance, insurance, gas, etc.\n[00:55 - 00:56] Speaker A: I think it's cheaper.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one, maintaining a clear conversational flow.\n- Speaker B's initial \"I don't drive\" is a direct answer.\n- Speaker A's follow-up questions (\"But you have to drive. What are you going to do without a car?\") are logical reactions.\n- Speaker B's explanation about public transportation provides a coherent alternative.\n- The debate then shifts to convenience and cost, with both speakers presenting their viewpoints and reacting to the other's points (e.g., A finding public transport inconvenient, B finding it convenient and cheap).\n- Speaker A's apparent shift in stance towards agreeing about cars being overpriced and public transport saving money (0:21-0:30) is immediately picked up by Speaker B for clarification (0:30-0:34), demonstrating active listening and maintaining logical consistency within the interaction itself, as B is highlighting A's internal consistency.\n- The conversation then continues to explore the total cost and effort of car ownership versus public transport, staying coherent and on topic throughout. There are no abrupt topic shifts or irrelevant statements.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of the dialogue is very natural and appropriate.\n- **Extended overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps identified:\n    - Speaker B starts at 0:17 while Speaker A ends at 0:18, resulting in a 1-second overlap.\n    - Speaker A starts at 0:40 while Speaker B ends at 0:41, also a 1-second overlap.\n    These are brief and common in natural conversation, not prolonged or disruptive, and are explicitly stated as acceptable in the guidelines.\n- **Long pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The maximum pause observed is 1 second (e.g., Speaker A ends at 0:06, Speaker B starts at 0:07; Speaker B ends at 0:20, Speaker A starts at 0:21). These short pauses are natural conversational breaks and do not hinder the flow.\nOverall, the pacing and turn-taking contribute to a highly fluent interaction.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--350",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Can you develop the roll of film?\n[00:02 - 00:02] Speaker B: Sure.\n[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker A: How long does it usually take\n[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but do you need it urgently? We can expedite the process if necessary.\n[00:09 - 00:13] Speaker A: Actually, yes. How quickly can you develop it?\n[00:13 - 00:18] Speaker B: Normally, it takes 6 hours, but if you're in a hurry, we can develop it in 3 hours.\n[00:18 - 00:25] Speaker A: That would be great. By the way, I was asking earlier—how long does it take under normal circumstances?\n[00:26 - 00:30] Speaker B: It's usually 6 hours, but as mentioned, we can do it faster if needed.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous one. Speaker B's proactive question (\"do you need it urgently?\") after Speaker A's initial question about duration is a highly relevant and pragmatic move, anticipating Speaker A's need and offering a solution. Speaker A's slight redundancy in re-asking about \"normal circumstances\" is a minor point, but Speaker B handles it gracefully by patiently reiterating the information, maintaining coherence. The topic remains focused on film development time throughout.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is generally excellent. There are no long pauses between turns; the longest pauses are 1 second, which is natural for conversational transitions. There is one notable overlap:\n*   **[00:03 - 00:08] Speaker B:** begins speaking at [00:03] while **[00:03 - 00:04] Speaker A:** is still speaking. Speaker B explicitly acknowledges this with \"Sorry to jump in,\" indicating it's a conscious, brief interruption rather than a chaotic overlap. This type of overlap is common in natural conversation, especially when one speaker anticipates the other's question or has an urgent clarification. It's not prolonged and does not disrupt understanding. The other transitions, like at [00:13] and [00:18], are very tight, almost immediate, which indicates smooth conversational flow rather than disruptive overlapping.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--100459",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: There's a bird!\n[00:01 - 00:02] Speaker B: Where?\n[00:02 - 00:05] Speaker A: Right there! Can you see it? It's\n[00:04 - 00:08] Speaker B: Wait, is it moving? I think I see something, but it's really high up.\n[00:08 - 00:11] Speaker A: I'm not sure. What kind of bird is it?\n[00:11 - 00:13] Speaker B: I don't know. But it's really far up!\n[00:14 - 00:17] Speaker A: It might be a hawk. Or an eagle. Do you think it could\n[00:17 - 00:22] Speaker B: An eagle? That would be amazing! But do you think it could be something else, like maybe a falcon?\n[00:23 - 00:26] Speaker A: I don't know. But it's really cool!\n[00:26 - 00:28] Speaker B: It is. I bet it's hunting for food.\n[00:29 - 00:30] Speaker A: Do you think it's hungry?\n[00:31 - 00:35] Speaker B: Maybe. But there are a lot of other birds around, so it might not be able to find anything to eat.\n[00:36 - 00:38] Speaker A: I hope it finds something to eat.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn directly follows and builds upon the previous one, maintaining a clear and consistent topic: the observed bird.\n- Speaker B's \"Where?\" is a direct and logical follow-up to A's initial observation.\n- Speaker A's \"Right there! Can you see it?\" and subsequent identification attempts (\"hawk,\" \"eagle\") are relevant to helping B locate and identify the bird.\n- Speaker B's responses like \"is it moving?\", \"really high up\", and suggestions like \"falcon\" all contribute to the shared goal of observing and identifying the bird.\n- The shift to discussing the bird's hunger and potential hunting behavior is a natural progression of the topic.\nThere are no instances of abrupt topic changes, irrelevant statements, or illogical responses. The conversation flows very naturally in terms of content.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency of this dialogue is excellent.\n- **Extended overlaps:** There are two brief overlaps identified.\n    - At [00:04], Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is completing their sentence [00:02 - 00:05]. This overlap lasts for about 1 second (00:04-00:05). This is a very common and natural occurrence in conversation, where one speaker anticipates the end of the other's turn or interjects a thought, rather than a prolonged interruption.\n    - At [00:17], Speaker B begins their turn precisely as Speaker A finishes theirs. This is not an overlap where both are speaking simultaneously for a duration, but rather a seamless, rapid turn-taking which enhances naturalness.\nNeither of these can be considered \"extended overlaps\" that are harmful; they are indicative of engaged and lively conversation.\n- **Long pauses:** There are no long pauses between speaker turns. The pauses range from 0 to 1 second, which are perfectly natural and contribute to a smooth conversational rhythm. For example, the gaps between [00:13] and [00:14], [00:22] and [00:23], [00:28] and [00:29], [00:30] and [00:31], and [00:35] and [00:36] are all 1 second, which is a standard, comfortable pause length in human conversation.\nThe turn-taking is highly efficient and natural, without any awkward silences or disruptive interruptions.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "SODA_PROCESSED--val--45544",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:07] Speaker A: I'm really happy with how this picture turned out. The frame is perfect and the colors really pop against the white wall.\n[00:06 - 00:13] Speaker B: Sorry to cut in, but did you choose the frame yourself or was it a suggestion from someone else? It really complements the picture.\n[00:13 - 00:25] Speaker A: I chose it myself! I thought it would enhance the colors and make them stand out more. And yeah, the white wall really helps with that too. It's a great reminder of my family and what we've been through together.\n[00:26 - 00:28] Speaker B: That's really sweet. I'm sure your family loves it too.\n[00:29 - 00:31] Speaker A: They do, and I'm grateful for that.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue exhibits excellent response relevance. Each speaker's turn directly addresses or builds upon the previous turn's content.\n- Speaker B's first turn (00:06-00:13) immediately follows up on Speaker A's mention of the frame and colors, asking a direct, relevant question about the frame choice.\n- Speaker A's second turn (00:13-00:25) provides a direct answer to B's question and elaborates further on the picture's significance, connecting it to family. This is a natural progression of the topic.\n- Speaker B's second turn (00:26-00:28) responds empathetically to the personal revelation about family, showing active listening and engagement.\n- Speaker A's final turn (00:29-00:31) directly acknowledges B's empathetic comment.\nThe conversation maintains logical consistency and topic coherence throughout, flowing smoothly from discussing the picture's aesthetics to its personal meaning.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency is very good.\n- **Overlaps:** There is one brief overlap between [00:06 - 00:07] where Speaker B starts speaking while Speaker A is finishing their sentence. Speaker B acknowledges this with \"Sorry to cut in,\" which makes the overlap feel natural and polite rather than disruptive or harmful. This is a common and acceptable feature of natural conversation, not an extended or problematic overlap.\n- **Pauses:** There are small, natural pauses between turns:\n    - A 1-second pause between Speaker A's turn (ends 00:25) and Speaker B's turn (starts 00:26).\n    - A 1-second pause between Speaker B's turn (ends 00:28) and Speaker A's turn (starts 00:29).\nThese pauses are brief and contribute to the natural rhythm of the conversation, indicating processing time without being prolonged or awkward. There are no long pauses that would disrupt the flow.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--125",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:03] Speaker A: Roast Beijing Duck? That sounds like a\n[00:02 - 00:10] Speaker B: Sorry to interrupt, but I just want to confirm, do you prefer something more traditional or are you open to trying something a bit more adventurous along with the wine?\n[00:11 - 00:18] Speaker A: I'm open to trying new things! But I was going to ask, you mentioned Roast Beijing Duck earlier—what makes it so special?\n[00:19 - 00:21] Speaker B: Yes, it is the best of our hotel.\n[00:21 - 00:23] Speaker A: Really? Let me have a try.\n[00:23 - 00:25] Speaker B: Thank you. Just a moment, please.",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates good logical consistency and topic coherence. Speaker A introduces \"Roast Beijing Duck,\" and although Speaker B briefly interjects to clarify a general preference for \"traditional or adventurous\" food/wine pairings, Speaker A quickly brings the conversation back to the duck. Speaker A's \"But I was going to ask, you mentioned Roast Beijing Duck earlier—what makes it so special?\" effectively links back to the initial mention, showing good recall and guiding the topic. Speaker B's response \"Yes, it is the best of our hotel\" directly answers Speaker A's implicit question about its specialty. Speaker A's subsequent decision \"Really? Let me have a try\" is a logical next step based on the information provided. The entire exchange flows naturally from inquiry to information and decision.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interaction exhibits appropriate and natural fluency. There is a brief overlap between [00:02 - 00:03] where Speaker B interrupts Speaker A. However, Speaker B immediately apologizes (\"Sorry to interrupt\"), which mitigates any negative impact and indicates politeness and awareness of the interruption. This kind of brief, acknowledged interruption is common in natural conversation, especially when one speaker wants to quickly clarify something. There are no extended overlaps, nor are there any long pauses between speaker turns. The pacing feels natural and conversational.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 2
+  },
+  {
+    "key": "DialogSum--test--429",
+    "text_input": "[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey there, how are you doing?\n[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: I am great. How are you?\n[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: Well, I got laid off, and I'm looking for anything that\n[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Oh no, that's tough. What kind of job are you thinking about now?\n[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker A: Right now, I'll take about anything that will pay the mortgage.\n[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker B: Have you gone out on any interviews so far?\n[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker A: I went out on one interview, but I haven't heard back from\n[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but did you see the posting for the electrician apprentice program?\n[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: You know, I saw that and it looks pretty good! By the way, I was saying I haven't heard back from that interview yet.\n[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker B: Let's go check out that program again!",
+    "model_output": "<response think>\nThe dialogue demonstrates strong response relevance and logical consistency. Each speaker's turn builds upon the previous one, maintaining topic coherence.\n\n1.  **[00:00 - 00:01] Speaker A: Hey there, how are you doing?** (Standard greeting)\n2.  **[00:02 - 00:03] Speaker B: I am great. How are you?** (Relevant reply, reciprocating the greeting)\n3.  **[00:04 - 00:07] Speaker A: Well, I got laid off, and I'm looking for anything that** (Direct and relevant answer to \"How are you?\", setting the context of their current situation)\n4.  **[00:06 - 00:10] Speaker B: Oh no, that's tough. What kind of job are you thinking about now?** (Empathetic and logically follows A's revelation, asking a relevant follow-up question)\n5.  **[00:10 - 00:13] Speaker A: Right now, I'll take about anything that will pay the mortgage.** (Direct and relevant answer to B's question about job type)\n6.  **[00:14 - 00:16] Speaker B: Have you gone out on any interviews so far?** (Logically progresses the conversation about A's job search)\n7.  **[00:16 - 00:20] Speaker A: I went out on one interview, but I haven't heard back from** (Relevant answer to B's question)\n8.  **[00:19 - 00:23] Speaker B: Sorry to jump in, but did you see the posting for the electrician apprentice program?** (Although an interruption, B explicitly acknowledges it (\"Sorry to jump in\"). The question itself is highly relevant to A's situation, offering a potential solution or lead for a job. This is a constructive topic shift.)\n9.  **[00:24 - 00:31] Speaker A: You know, I saw that and it looks pretty good! By the way, I was saying I haven't heard back from that interview yet.** (A gracefully handles the interjection by acknowledging B's suggestion positively, then skillfully brings the conversation back to their original point (\"By the way, I was saying...\"). This shows excellent topic management and memory of the conversation's flow.)\n10. **[00:32 - 00:34] Speaker B: Let's go check out that program again!** (B picks up on A's positive remark about the program, offering a direct and relevant next step based on the shared information. This concludes the interaction on a helpful note.)\n\nThe dialogue maintains high logical consistency and coherence. Even with a brief \"jump in,\" the conversation seamlessly integrates the new information and returns to the initial point, demonstrating natural and effective communication.\n</response think>\n\n<fluency think>\nThe interactional fluency in this dialogue is excellent, reflecting a natural and spontaneous conversation.\n\n1.  **Pauses:**\n    *   [00:01 - 00:02]: 1-second pause between A and B's first turns.\n    *   [00:03 - 00:04]: 1-second pause between B and A's turns.\n    *   [00:13 - 00:14]: 1-second pause between A and B's turns.\n    *   [00:23 - 00:24]: 1-second pause between B and A's turns.\n    *   [00:31 - 00:32]: 1-second pause between A and B's turns.\n    All pauses are 1 second, which are brief and entirely acceptable in natural conversation, allowing for processing and turn-taking without feeling unnatural or disruptive. There are no \"long pauses.\"\n\n2.  **Overlaps:**\n    *   **[00:06 - 00:07]**: Speaker B (\"Oh no, that's tough...\") overlaps Speaker A (\"...anything that\"). This is a 1-second overlap. This type of overlap is common in empathetic or reactive responses where the listener starts speaking slightly before the current speaker finishes, often signaling active listening or immediate emotional reaction. It's brief and doesn't disrupt A's flow, as A continues their sentence after B's interjection.\n    *   **[00:19 - 00:20]**: Speaker B (\"Sorry to jump in, but did you see...\") overlaps Speaker A (\"...heard back from\"). This is another 1-second overlap. Crucially, Speaker B explicitly says \"Sorry to jump in,\" indicating awareness of the interruption. This is a very natural conversational phenomenon, especially when a speaker has an urgent or highly relevant thought to share. It's a brief, purposeful overlap, not an extended one.\n\nThere are no extended overlaps or disruptive long pauses. The brief overlaps are characteristic of engaged, natural conversation and in one instance are explicitly acknowledged, enhancing the feeling of authenticity rather than detracting from fluency.\n</fluency think>\n\n<overall score>2</overall score>",
+    "predicted_score": 2,
+    "prediction_attempts": 4
+  }
+]
\ No newline at end of file