I Beg to Differ: A study of constructive disagreement in online conversations (2021.eacl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Disagreements are pervasive in human communication. |
| Approach: | They construct a corpus of Wikipedia Talk page conversations that contain content disputes and define the task of predicting whether disagreements will be escalated to mediation by a moderator. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms feature-based models in predicting whether disagreements will escalate to mediation by a moderator. |
Similar Papers
How to disagree well: Investigating the dispute tactics used on Wikipedia (2022.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Disagreements are often studied from the perspective of toxicity or analysing argument structure. |
| Approach: | They propose a dispute tactics framework which unifies both perspectives . they annotate 213 disagreements from Wikipedia Talk pages . |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework can be used to predict disagreements with a transformer-based model. |
Dimensions of Online Conflict: Towards Modeling Agonism (2023.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
Matt Canute, Mali Jin, Hannah Holtzclaw, Alberto Lusoli, Philippa Adams, Mugdha Pandya, Maite Taboada, Diana Maynard, Wendy Hui Kyong Chun
| Challenge: | agonism fosters robust discussions, but hateful antagonism undermines constructive dialogue . a new study analyzes Twitter conversations to identify different dimensions of conflict . |
| Approach: | They annotated Twitter conversations related to trending controversial topics to model conflict on a richly annotized dataset. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can help to moderate online conflicts and improve content monetization. |
Promoting Constructive Deliberation: Reframing for Receptiveness (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Current methods for promoting pro-social discussion and debate online are limited. |
| Approach: | They propose automatic reframing of disagreeing responses to signal receptiveness to a preceding comment. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework can be used to promote constructive debate and debate online. |
Hybrid Neural Attention for Agreement/Disagreement Inference in Online Debates (D18-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing models for agreement/disagreement in debates lack the ability to model these two factors together. |
| Approach: | They propose a hybrid attention model which combines self and cross attention mechanism to locate salient part from textual context and interaction between users. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms the state-of-the-art models on three (dis)agreement inference datasets. |
Do Differences in Values Influence Disagreements in Online Discussions? (2023.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Disagreement is an important aspect of online discussions since it can drive novel ideas, incentivize evaluation of the proposed ideas, and avoid echo chambers. |
| Approach: | They propose to use human-annotated agreement labels to estimate personal values and to include value information in agreement prediction to improve performance. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models show that dissimilarity of value profiles correlates with disagreement in specific cases and that including value information in agreement prediction improves performance. |
Recognising Agreement and Disagreement between Stances with Reason Comparing Networks (P19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for (dis)agreement detection focus on conversational settings . however, non-dialogic stance-bearing utterances are common in real-world scenarios . |
| Approach: | They propose a reason comparing network to leverage reason information for stance comparison. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method outperforms baselines on a well-known stance corpus. |
DialDefer: A Framework for Detecting and Mitigating LLM Dialogic Deference (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Parisa Rabbani, Priyam Sahoo, Ruben Mathew, Aishee Mondal, Harshita Ketharaman, Nimet Beyza Bozdag, Dilek Hakkani-Tür
| Challenge: | a single model can shift toward disagreement (skepticism) on graduate-level science and toward agreement (deference) on social judgment. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework to detect and mitigat framing-induced judgment shifts . they propose 'DialDefer' framework to help model disagreements and disagreements based on attribution . |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework detects and mitigates dialogic deference shifts in LLMs . human-vs-LLM attribution drives the largest shifts (17.7 pp swing) |
Automated Fact-Checking in Dialogue: Are Specialized Models Needed? (2023.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Prior work has shown that typical fact-checking models struggle with claims made in conversation. |
| Approach: | They propose to fine-tune models for dialogue on conversational data to improve performance on typical fact-checking. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models perform better on stand-alone claims than state-of-the-art models for dialogue while maintaining their performance on standalone claim. |
Investigating Reasons for Disagreement in Natural Language Inference (2022.tacl-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Several disagreements in natural language inference (NLI) annotation are due to uncertainty in the sentence meaning, others to annotator biases and task artifacts. |
| Approach: | They propose a 4-way classification approach and a multilabel classification approach for detecting disagreements in natural language inference annotations. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model is more expressive and gives better recall of possible interpretations in the data. |
“Laughing at you or with you”: The Role of Sarcasm in Shaping the Disagreement Space (2021.eacl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Detecting arguments in online interactions is useful to understand how conflicts arise and get resolved. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a corpus annotated with argumentative moves and sarcasm to model sarcastic relationships using deep learning architectures. |
| Outcome: | The proposed setup improves the argumentative relation classification task using deep learning architectures. |