Papers › Is ChatGPT a Good Multi-Party Conversation Solver?
Is ChatGPT a Good Multi-Party Conversation Solver?
Chao-Hong Tan, Jia-Chen Gu, Zhen-Hua Ling
Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as influential instruments within the realm of natural language processing; nevertheless, their capacity to handle multi-party conversations (MPCs) -- a scenario marked by the presence of multiple interlocutors involved in intricate information exchanges -- remains uncharted. In this paper, we delve into the potential of generative LLMs such as ChatGPT and GPT-4 within the context of MPCs. An empirical analysis is conducted to assess the zero-shot learning capabilities of ChatGPT and GPT-4 by subjecting them to evaluation across three MPC datasets that encompass five representative tasks. The findings reveal that ChatGPT's performance on a number of evaluated MPC tasks leaves much to be desired, whilst GPT-4's results portend a promising future. Additionally, we endeavor to bolster performance through the incorporation of MPC structures, encompassing both speaker and addressee architecture. This study provides an exhaustive evaluation and analysis of applying generative LLMs to MPCs, casting a light upon the conception and creation of increasingly effective and robust MPC agents. Concurrently, this work underscores the challenges implicit in the utilization of LLMs for MPCs, such as deciphering graphical information flows and generating stylistically consistent responses.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections