Papers › Social Processes: Self-Supervised Meta-Learning over Conversational Groups for...

Social Processes: Self-Supervised Meta-Learning over Conversational Groups for Forecasting Nonverbal Social Cues

28 Jul 2021NeurIPS 2021 12arXiv:2107.13576archive 2025-07-28

Chirag Raman, Hayley Hung, Marco Loog

Free-standing social conversations constitute a yet underexplored setting for human behavior forecasting. While the task of predicting pedestrian trajectories has received much recent attention, an intrinsic difference between these settings is how groups form and disband. Evidence from social psychology suggests that group members in a conversation explicitly self-organize to sustain the interaction by adapting to one another's behaviors. Crucially, the same individual is unlikely to adapt similarly across different groups; contextual factors such as perceived relationships, attraction, rapport, etc., influence the entire spectrum of participants' behaviors. A question arises: how can we jointly forecast the mutually dependent futures of conversation partners by modeling the dynamics unique to every group? In this paper, we propose the Social Process (SP) models, taking a novel meta-learning and stochastic perspective of group dynamics. Training group-specific forecasting models hinders generalization to unseen groups and is challenging given limited conversation data. In contrast, our SP models treat interaction sequences from a single group as a meta-dataset: we condition forecasts for a sequence from a given group on other observed-future sequence pairs from the same group. In this way, an SP model learns to adapt its forecasts to the unique dynamics of the interacting partners, generalizing to unseen groups in a data-efficient manner. Additionally, we first rethink the task formulation itself, motivating task requirements from social science literature that prior formulations have overlooked. For our formulation of Social Cue Forecasting, we evaluate the empirical performance of our SP models against both non-meta-learning and meta-learning approaches with similar assumptions. The SP models yield improved performance on synthetic and real-world behavior datasets.

PaperPDFConference PDFCodeCode Syntology ran

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2107.13576")

Code

Syntology Ran 2 of 2 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 1 ran · our draft was wrong.

By repository: official repository: 2 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

chiragraman/social-processes officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorch report

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

2 samples harvested; 2 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

1ran · honoured contract
1ran · our draft was wrong

Licence: 0 of the 2 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from chiragraman/social-processes. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

convert_sine_error_to_angle chiragraman/social-processes/run/run_synthetic_glancing.py official repository ran · honoured contract fingerprinted MIT (permissive) · 06cb02630b4d0101 · report
generate_test_ctx_idxs chiragraman/social-processes/run/run_synthetic_glancing.py official repository ran · our draft was wrong fingerprinted MIT (permissive) · b09f8e49aebd6df1 · report

Tasks

Human Behavior ForecastingSocial Cue Forecasting

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

AWARENON

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