A Corpus for Modeling User and Language Effects in Argumentation on Online Debating (P19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing argumentation datasets have allowed only limited assessment of "user" traits because information on background of users is generally unavailable. |
| Approach: | They present a dataset of 78,376 debates generated over a 10-year period along with surprisingly comprehensive participant profiles. |
| Outcome: | The proposed dataset includes 78,376 debates generated over a 10-year period along with comprehensive participant profiles. |
Similar Papers
Exploring the Role of Argument Structure in Online Debate Persuasion (2020.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing work in NLP has shown that linguistic features extracted from debate text and features encoding the characteristics of the audience are both critical in persuasion studies. |
| Approach: | They propose to incorporate argument structure features into an LSTM-based model to assess the persuasiveness of debates. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model incorporates argument structure features to predict debaters that make the most convincing arguments on online debate forums. |
Unveiling the Power of Argument Arrangement in Online Persuasive Discussions (2023.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a recent study shows that the CMV is the best time period in human history for the vast majority of people. |
| Approach: | They extend a semantic argumentation unit type model by clustering type sequences into different argument arrangement patterns and representing discussions as sequences of these patterns. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms existing classifiers on the change my view forum discussion data. |
Corpus for Modeling User Interactions in Online Persuasive Discussions (2020.lrec-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Several studies have focused on the identification and classification of argumentative components and the argumentative relations between the components. |
| Approach: | They propose an annotation scheme and corpus that captures user-generated inner-post arguments and inter-post relations between users in ChangeMyView. |
| Outcome: | The proposed annotation scheme captures user-generated inner-post arguments and inter-post relations in ChangeMyView, a persuasive forum. |
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. |
Modelling Argumentation for an User Opinion Aggregation Tool (2024.lrec-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for eliciting information from user opinion data are limited to high-level text and are prone to hallucination, degrading system performance or introduce biases. |
| Approach: | They propose an argumentation annotation scheme that models argumentative structure across user opinion domains. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can predict arguments and contextual details from user opinions . the model can rank products based on user opinions and improve user experience . |
The Role of Pragmatic and Discourse Context in Determining Argument Impact (D19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent work shows that attributes of both the audience and communicator constitute important cues for determining argument strength. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a dataset to study the pragmatic and discourse context of argumentative claims to build predictive models that incorporate the pragmatic context of the argument. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models outperform models that rely on claim-specific linguistic features for predicting the perceived impact of individual claims within a particular line of argument. |
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. |
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. |
Detecting Attackable Sentences in Arguments (2020.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Prior work in NLP studies focus on argument quality and making counterarguments toward the main claim, without investigating what parts of an argument are attackable for successful persuasion. |
| Approach: | They propose to use machine learning to find attackable sentences in online arguments by analyzing driving reasons for attacks and identifying relevant characteristics of sentences. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can detect attackable sentences significantly better than baselines and comparably well to laypeople. |
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. |