“Tell me who you are and I tell you how you argue”: Predicting Stances and Arguments for Stakeholder Groups (2024.findings-naacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Argument mining has focused on the identification, extraction, and formalization of arguments. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that relies on a recommender-based architecture to predict stances and argumentative main points on societally controversial topics for a given stakeholder. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework predicts arguments on a debate topic based on BERTScore and debate.org datasets. |
Similar Papers
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. |
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. |
Yes, we can! Mining Arguments in 50 Years of US Presidential Campaign Debates (P19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Political debates are a natural application scenario for Argument Mining. |
| Approach: | They propose an argument mining approach to political debates that uses argument components to annotate 39 political debate from the last 50 years of US presidential campaigns. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach outperforms baselines in argument mining over political debates. |
Exploiting Personal Characteristics of Debaters for Predicting Persuasiveness (2020.acl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Several studies have examined persuasiveness in debates by probing the main factors for establishing persuasion, particularly regarding the role of linguistic features of debaters' arguments. |
| Approach: | They propose to model debaters’ prior beliefs, interests, and personality traits based on their previous activity without dependence on explicit user profiles or questionnaires. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves persuasiveness prediction and debater resistance to persuasion. |
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 . |
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. |
Leveraging Topic Relatedness for Argument Persuasion (2021.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing studies of argumentation focus on the effects of factors such as source, audience, and language style, but the impact of exploiting the relationships among controversial topics is under-explored. |
| Approach: | They propose to model topic relatedness among controversial topics using topic embedding features and topic semantics features extracted from the arguments. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method improves predicting persuasiveness and generalizes to rare topics in a few-shot setting. |
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 . |
From Argumentation to Deliberation: Perspectivized Stance Vectors for Fine-grained (Dis)agreement Analysis (2025.findings-naacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods to identify conflict resolution points require a deeper analysis of arguments and the perspectives they are grounded in. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework for a deliberative analysis of arguments in a computational argumentation setup. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework allows us to identify actionable options for conflict resolution, as a first step towards deliberation. |
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). |