DISAPERE: A Dataset for Discourse Structure in Peer Review Discussions (2022.naacl-main)
Copied to clipboard
Neha Kennard, Tim O’Gorman, Rajarshi Das, Akshay Sharma, Chhandak Bagchi, Matthew Clinton, Pranay Kumar Yelugam, Hamed Zamani, Andrew McCallum
| Challenge: | Prior work on labeling arguments extracted from peer review text has focused qualified labor force on labelling arguments extracted by the text. |
| Approach: | They synthesize label sets from prior work and extend them to include fine-grained annotations of review and rebuttal sentences. |
| Outcome: | The proposed dataset synthesizes label sets from prior work and extends them to include fine-grained annotation of review and rebuttal sentences. |
Similar Papers
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. |
Exploring Jiu-Jitsu Argumentation for Writing Peer Review Rebuttals (2023.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent work suggests that instead of directly countering surface-level reasoning, one should follow an argumentation style inspired by the Jiu-Jitsu “soft” combat system. |
| Approach: | They propose a task of attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation for peer reviews to enrich existing discourse structure with attitude roots, attitude themes, and canonical reversals. |
| Outcome: | The proposed task is based on an existing dataset for discourse structure in peer reviews with attitude roots, attitude themes, and canonical rebuttals. |
A Corpus for Argumentative Writing Support in German (2020.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | In today's world most information is readily available. Consequently, the sole reproduction of information is losing attention. |
| Approach: | They propose an annotation approach to capture claims and premises of arguments and their relations in student-written peer reviews on business models in german language. |
| Outcome: | The proposed annotation scheme guides annotators to moderate agreement with the proposed scheme on 50 persuasive student-written peer reviews on business models. |
Who Sides with Whom? Towards Computational Construction of Discourse Networks for Political Debates (P19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a vision of computational construction of discourse networks from newspaper reports is essential for understanding democratic political decision making. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a requirements analysis and an annotated pilot corpus of migration claims to build a computationally-based model of political debates from newspaper reports. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework could be scaled up to a large scale and be useful for political scientists. |
A Dataset of General-Purpose Rebuttal (D19-1)
Copied to clipboard
Matan Orbach, Yonatan Bilu, Ariel Gera, Yoav Kantor, Lena Dankin, Tamar Lavee, Lili Kotlerman, Shachar Mirkin, Michal Jacovi, Ranit Aharonov, Noam Slonim
| Challenge: | a key element in argumentation is rebuttal, the ability to contest an argument by presenting a counter-argument. |
| Approach: | They propose a method based on general rebuttal arguments to produce a critical response to a long argumentative text. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method overcomes the need for topic-specific arguments to be provided . it allows creating responses beyond the scope of topics for which specific arguments are available . |
APE: Argument Pair Extraction from Peer Review and Rebuttal via Multi-task Learning (2020.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Argument mining is an important research field that attracts growing attention in recent years. |
| Approach: | They propose a new task to extract argument pairs from peer review and rebuttal . they use an open review platform to analyze the contents, structure and connections . |
| Outcome: | The proposed task is based on a dataset of 4,764 fully annotated review-rebuttal passage pairs . it is able to detect argumentative propositions and extract argument pairs from the corpus . |
ENTRUST: Argument Reframing with Language Models and Entailment (2021.naacl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Public opinion has been shown to be significantly influenced by framing effects. |
| Approach: | They propose a method for reframing arguments that combines controllable text generation with a post-decoding entailment component to achieve the same denotation. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method is effective compared to baselines along the dimensions of fluency, meaning, and trustworthiness/reduction of fear. |
Summarizing Multiple Documents with Conversational Structure for Meta-Review Generation (2023.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing models for abstractive text summarization do not provide explicit interdocument relationships among source documents. |
| Approach: | They propose a model that uses sparse attention based on the conversational structure and a multi-task training objective that predicts metadata features. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms baseline models in terms of evaluation metrics but struggle to handle conflicts in source documents. |
QUD-Based Annotation of Discourse Structure and Information Structure: Tool and Evaluation (L18-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a new annotation scheme and discourse-analytic method is developed for information structure annotation. |
| Approach: | They propose a new annotation scheme and a discourse-analytic method based on Questions under Discussion . they introduce a tool which enables the analyst to semi-automatically segment texts and enhance them with QUDs . |
| Outcome: | The proposed method achieves good inter-annotator scores and good agreement with discourse annotations. |
Argument Mining for Understanding Peer Reviews (N19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | In 2015 alone, approximately 63.4 million hours were spent on peer reviews. |
| Approach: | They propose to automatically detect argumentative propositions put forward by reviewers and their types by automatically detecting their types and types. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method detects (1) the argumentative propositions put forward by reviewers, and (2) their types (e.g., evaluating the work or making suggestions for improvement). |