Discrete Argument Representation Learning for Interactive Argument Pair Identification (2021.naacl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing research on monological argumentation covers claims generation, argument structure prediction, and essay scoring. |
| Approach: | They propose to identify argument pairs from two posts with opposite stances to a certain topic. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework outperforms competing models on a large-scale dataset . it also proves that it is useful for analyzing argument pairs from two posts . |
Similar Papers
A Simple Contrastive Learning Framework for Interactive Argument Pair Identification via Argument-Context Extraction (2022.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing work on argument mining uses context-based methods to identify whether two arguments are interactively related. |
| Approach: | They propose a contrastive learning framework to extract valuable information from the context. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework achieves state-of-the-art performance on the benchmark dataset and visually displays more compact representations. |
Leveraging Argumentation Knowledge Graph for Interactive Argument Pair Identification (2021.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing researches focus on sentence matching but the interaction of opinions requires reasoning of knowledge, which is beyond textual information. |
| Approach: | They propose to leverage external knowledge to enhance the identification of interactive argument pairs by analyzing the discussion thread of the target topic in an online forum. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model achieves state-of-the-art in the benchmark dataset. |
Structured Representation Learning for Online Debate Stance Prediction (C18-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing models for understanding debate dialog ignore relationships between different topics and focus on textual content and user interaction. |
| Approach: | They propose to view this task as a representation learning problem and embed the text and authors jointly based on their interactions. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can achieve significantly better results compared to competing models. |
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. |
Fine-Grained Legal Argument-Pair Extraction via Coarse-Grained Pre-training (2024.lrec-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Current methods conceptualize LAE as a supervised sentence-pair classification problem and necessitate extensive manual annotations. |
| Approach: | They propose a model that focuses on fine-grained alignment of argument pairs building upon coarse-grain complaint-defense pairs. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms baseline models by 3.7 and 2.4 points on average. |
Which Side Are You On? A Multi-task Dataset for End-to-End Argument Summarisation and Evaluation (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
Hao Li, Yuping Wu, Viktor Schlegel, Riza Batista-Navarro, Tharindu Madusanka, Iqra Zahid, Jiayan Zeng, Xiaochi Wang, Xinran He, Yizhi Li, Goran Nenadic
| Challenge: | Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have made it difficult to build an automated debate system that helps people to synthesise persuasive arguments. |
| Approach: | They propose to use an argument mining dataset to capture the end-to-end process of preparing an argumentative essay for a debate. |
| Outcome: | The proposed dataset shows that it performs better on individual tasks than on human-centred evaluations. |
Determining Relative Argument Specificity and Stance for Complex Argumentative Structures (P19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing work on claim specificity and stance has been limited to shallow arguments . a system that can determine the stance of claims employed in argumentation is not sufficient . |
| Approach: | They propose to use a dataset of manually curated argument trees to study claim specificity and stance in argumentation. |
| Outcome: | The proposed dataset consists of manually curated argument trees for 741 controversial topics covering 95,312 unique claims. |
Contextual Interaction for Argument Post Quality Assessment (2023.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for assessing the quality of natural language arguments are limited . existing methods focus on evaluating individual argument posts, but they often fail to distinguish between arguments with a narrow quality gap. |
| Approach: | They propose to use supervised contrastive learning to model arguments' quality . large language models with in-context examples harness the power of LLMs . |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach outperforms state-of-the-art models on a publicly available dataset . it shows that the LLMs with in-context examples are more effective than baseline models . |
IAM: A Comprehensive and Large-Scale Dataset for Integrated Argument Mining Tasks (2022.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Argument mining (AM) is a computational process that is used to analyze information in a debating system. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a large dataset to automate the manual process of debating . they propose to integrate claim extraction, stance classification and evidence extraction tasks . |
| Outcome: | The proposed tasks can extract claims, stances, evidence and more from a large dataset . the proposed tasks are highly efficient and can be applied to argument mining tasks . |
Limited Generalizability in Argument Mining: State-Of-The-Art Models Learn Datasets, Not Arguments (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Identifying arguments is a prerequisite for various tasks in automated discourse analysis. |
| Approach: | They evaluate four BERT-like transformers on 17 English sentence-level datasets . they find that they tend to rely on lexical shortcuts tied to content words . |
| Outcome: | The proposed models perform best on 17 English sentence-level datasets on common tasks, but their performance drops when applied to unseen datasets. |