Probes phase-aware compliance verification and phase boundary detection in insurance benefit verification calls. It measures a model’s ability to accurately segment conversational phases under workflow-specific rules and apply rule-based compliance reasoning (Information and Procedural Compliance) to fixed spans. Use when the user wants to benchmark on INSURE-Dial, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports exact match (EM).
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill insure-dial-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Insure Dial Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-insure-dial-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: insure-dial-eval
description: Probes phase-aware compliance verification and phase boundary detection in insurance benefit verification calls. It measures a model’s ability to accurately segment conversational phases under workflow-specific rules and apply rule-based compliance reasoning (Information and Procedural Compliance) to fixed spans. Use when the user wants to benchmark on INSURE-Dial, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports exact match (EM).
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2602.18448
bibtex_key: kulkarni2026insuredial
confidence: high
---
# insure-dial-eval
> INSURE-Dial: A Phase-Aware Conversational Dataset & Benchmark for Compliance Verification and Phase Detection — Kulkarni et al. (2026) (arXiv:2602.18448, 2026)
## What this evaluates
Probes phase-aware compliance verification and phase boundary detection in insurance benefit verification calls. It measures a model’s ability to accurately segment conversational phases under workflow-specific rules and apply rule-based compliance reasoning (Information and Procedural Compliance) to fixed spans.
## Datasets
- **INSURE-Dial** — total 1050; splits: real (50), synthetic (1000)
## Metrics
- `exact match (EM)` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Fraction of calls where all phases satisfy the task acceptance rules (Task 1) or conjunction over applicable phases (Task 2).
- `turn-level F1` — range: [0, 1]
- Overlap metric measuring turn-level span alignment between predicted and reference boundaries.
- `SAD` — range: other
- Sum of absolute differences between predicted and reference span boundaries; lower indicates less boundary drift.
- `phase-level accuracy (Acc)` — range: percent
- Fraction of phases correctly classified as compliant or non-compliant given fixed spans.
- `macro-F1` — range: [0, 1]
- Macro-averaged F1 score computed over non-"NA" phases.
- `Hit` — range: percent
- Mean fraction of applicable phases correctly identified per call.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Conversational transcript (real or synthetic) annotated with phase-structured JSON schemas capturing information and procedural compliance across IVR, patient identification, coverage status, drug checks, and agent identification.
**Output**: Predicted span boundaries for each phase (Task 1) and compliance labels (IC/PC) for fixed spans (Task 2), structured according to the phase-annotated JSON schema.
## Scoring recipe
```python
# Task 1: Phase Boundary Detection
call_em = 1.0
sad = 0
for pred_span, gold_span in zip(pred_spans, gold_spans):
if pred_span != gold_span: call_em = 0.0
sad += abs(len(pred_span) - len(gold_span))
f1 = compute_turn_level_overlap(pred_spans, gold_spans)
# Task 2: Compliance Verification (given fixed spans)
applicable = [i for i, m in enumerate(applicability_mask) if m]
correct = sum(pred_labels[i] == gold_labels[i] for i in applicable)
acc = correct / len(applicable)
hit = correct / len(applicable)
call_acc = 1.0 if correct == len(applicable) else 0.0
macro_f1 = compute_macro_f1(pred_labels, gold_labels, exclude_na=True)
```
## Common pitfalls
- Call-level EM collapses due to multiplicative strictness across 8–10 phases; a single boundary slip fails the entire call.
- IC and PC call-level accuracies are computed over different overall fields with different applicability patterns, making them incomparable across tasks.
- Synthetic data omits long hold-time chatter and IVR repetitions, inflating segmentation scores compared to real calls.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> For Task 1 we report exact match (EM) of the predicted span under §4.1 rules, turn-level overlap via $F_{1}$ , and sum of absolute differences (SAD) as a boundary-drift measure (lower is better). Call-level EM is the fraction of calls where all phases (including correctly predicting null when absent) satisfy the Task 1 acceptance rules. For Task 2 we report phase-level accuracy (Acc) and macro- $F_{1}$ over non-"NA" phases, plus Hit, the mean fraction of applicable phases correct per call
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{kulkarni2026insuredial,
title={INSURE-Dial: A Phase-Aware Conversational Dataset & Benchmark for Compliance Verification and Phase Detection},
author={Kulkarni et al. (2026)},
year={2026},
note={arXiv:2602.18448}
}
```
- arXiv: 2602.18448
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!