Exploring Discourse Structures for Argument Impact Classification (2021.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing studies have shown that discourse structures influence the persuasiveness of arguments. |
| Approach: | They propose to fuse sentence-level structural discourse information with contextualized features derived from large-scale language models to investigate how discourse relations influence argument impact. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves its backbone RoBERTa around 1.67%, compared with other models, but side effects are brought by other models. |
Similar Papers
The Role of Pragmatic and Discourse Context in Determining Argument Impact (D19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent work shows that attributes of both the audience and communicator constitute important cues for determining argument strength. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a dataset to study the pragmatic and discourse context of argumentative claims to build predictive models that incorporate the pragmatic context of the argument. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models outperform models that rely on claim-specific linguistic features for predicting the perceived impact of individual claims within a particular line of argument. |
Exploring the Role of Argument Structure in Online Debate Persuasion (2020.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing work in NLP has shown that linguistic features extracted from debate text and features encoding the characteristics of the audience are both critical in persuasion studies. |
| Approach: | They propose to incorporate argument structure features into an LSTM-based model to assess the persuasiveness of debates. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model incorporates argument structure features to predict debaters that make the most convincing arguments on online debate forums. |
Contextual Argument Component Classification for Class Discussions (2020.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Argument mining systems often consider contextual information when training to perform tasks such as argument component identification, classification, and relation extraction. |
| Approach: | They propose to incorporate speaker context and local discourse context into a model for classifying argument components in multi-party classroom discussions. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves when varying context size and position . the results support the claim that context size is important . |
Putting Context in Context: the Impact of Discussion Structure on Text Classification (2024.eacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Current text classification approaches focus on the content to be classified, but contextual information is neglected in many cases. |
| Approach: | They propose to integrate contextual information into a transformer-based model by feeding it as natural language input into . they also experiment with different amounts of training data and analyse local discussion networks in a privacy-compliant way. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can be generalized to other datasets and is privacy-compliant. |
Classifying Argumentative Relations Using Logical Mechanisms and Argumentation Schemes (2021.tacl-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent studies have focused on training complex neural networks on labeled data. |
| Approach: | They propose to use logical mechanisms to classify argumentative relations without training on labeled data. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method classifies argumentative relations without training on labeled data significantly better than unsupervised baselines. |
Uncovering the Potential of ChatGPT for Discourse Analysis in Dialogue: An Empirical Study (2024.lrec-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models have shown remarkable capability in many downstream tasks, yet their ability to understand discourse structures of dialogues remains less explored. |
| Approach: | They aim to systematically inspect ChatGPT’s performance in two discourse analysis tasks: topic segmentation and discourse parsing. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can give more reasonable topic structures than human annotations but only linearly parses the hierarchical rhetorical structures. |
A Multi-layer Annotated Corpus of Argumentative Text: From Argument Schemes to Discourse Relations (L18-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent interest in Argumentation Mining has brought to the fore the need for corpora annotated with argument information, which can be used as training data. |
| Approach: | They propose a set of guidelines for the annotation of argument schemes and a new annotation tool for the 'inferential' argument schemes. |
| Outcome: | The proposed corpus includes 112 argumentative microtexts and a new annotation tool. |
Unveiling the Power of Argument Arrangement in Online Persuasive Discussions (2023.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a recent study shows that the CMV is the best time period in human history for the vast majority of people. |
| Approach: | They extend a semantic argumentation unit type model by clustering type sequences into different argument arrangement patterns and representing discussions as sequences of these patterns. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms existing classifiers on the change my view forum discussion data. |
AMPERSAND: Argument Mining for PERSuAsive oNline Discussions (D19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Argument mining is a field of corpus-based discourse analysis that involves the automatic identification of argumentative structures in text. |
| Approach: | They propose a computational model for argument mining in online persuasive discussion forums that brings together the micro-level (argument as product) and macro-level models of argumentation. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves on existing models using pointer networks and a pre-trained language model. |
Towards Comprehensive Argument Analysis in Education: Dataset, Tasks, and Method (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing research on argument mining has proposed various argument annotation schemes and tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework comprising 14 fine-grained relation types to capture the interplay between argument components for a thorough understanding of argument structure. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework captures the interplay between argument components for a thorough understanding of argument structure. |