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.

Similar Papers

Modeling Frames in Argumentation (D19-1)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: In argumentation, framing is used to emphasize a specific aspect of a topic while concealing others.
Approach: They propose an unsupervised method for framing arguments into non-overlapping frames . authors propose a corpus of 12, 326 debate-portal arguments organized along the frames of debates' topics .
Outcome: The proposed method outperforms baselines on the argumentation task by 0.28 points.
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.
“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.
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 .
-Stance: A Large-Scale Real World Dataset of Stances in Legal Argumentation (2025.acl-long)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Current tools for legal argument reasoning do not support this task.
Approach: They propose to use a large-scale dataset to facilitate work on the legal argument stance classification task by evaluating whether a case summary strengthens or weakens a legal argument.
Outcome: The proposed dataset is used to facilitate work on the legal argument stance classification task, which involves assessing whether a case summary strengthens or weakens a legal argument (polarity) and to what extent (intensity).
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.
Modeling Deliberative Argumentation Strategies on Wikipedia (P18-1)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Existing models for deliberative discussions have been built manually based on a small set of discussions, resulting in a level of abstraction that is not suitable for move recommendation.
Approach: They propose to model argumentation strategies of deliberative discussions by annotating ongoing discussions with a label that can be used for move description.
Outcome: The proposed model can predict arguments of participants in deliberative discussions using metadata from Wikipedia talk pages.
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 a Perspectivist Turn in Argument Quality Assessment (2025.naacl-long)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Argument quality is a key aspect of computational argumentation (CA), but it still exhibits a high degree of subjectivity in perception.
Approach: They propose to use a multi-layered classification to target two aspects of argument quality in a systematic review of NLP datasets.
Outcome: The proposed model improves the quality of annotators and their ability to be used in perspectivist research.
Topic Ontologies for Arguments (2023.findings-eacl)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Many computational argumentation tasks, such as stance classification, are topic-dependent.
Approach: They map the argumentation landscape using the World Economic Forum, Wikipedia and Debatepedia as sources for argument topics.
Outcome: The argument ontology is the first comprehensive assessment of argument topics in argument corpora.

What is GenGO?

GenGO is an NLP powered publication search system. It currenctly indexes 30k+ papers from ACL Anthology, and implements multi-aspect summarization, semantic search, and more!

Information

About
Limitations