Yonatan Bilu, Ariel Gera, Daniel Hershcovich, Benjamin Sznajder, Dan Lahav, Guy Moshkowich, Anael Malet, Assaf Gavron, Noam Slonim
| Challenge: | Argument Invention is a task that is often referred to as a natural way of inventing arguments, but has not been formalized in the context of NLP. |
| Approach: | They propose to define a taxonomy of recurring arguments and to automatically identify which of them are relevant to the topic. |
| Outcome: | The proposed taxonomy is coherent, covers the relevant topics and coincides with what debaters actually argue in their speeches, and facilitates automatic argument invention for new topics. |
Similar Papers
Retrieval of the Best Counterargument without Prior Topic Knowledge (P18-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | ad-hominem attacks are the most common form of argumentation in real life . |
| Approach: | They hypothesize that the best counterargument invokes the same aspects as the argument while having the opposite stance. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model is independent from the topic at hand, i.e., it applies to arbitrary arguments. |
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. |
Automatic Debate Evaluation with Argumentation Semantics and Natural Language Argument Graph Networks (2023.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for analyzing argumentative debates are insufficient to understand complex tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose a hybrid method to automatically predict the winning stance in argumentative debates using arguments from argumentation theory and semantics. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method is based on an unexplored new instance of the automatic analysis of natural language arguments. |
Conclusion-based Counter-Argument Generation (2023.eacl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing work on the automatic generation of natural language counter-arguments does not address the relation to the conclusion, possibly because many arguments leave their conclusion implicit. |
| Approach: | They propose a multitask approach that jointly learns to generate both the conclusion and the counter of an input argument. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach generates more relevant and stance-adhering counters than strong baselines. |
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. |
Targeting the Benchmark: On Methodology in Current Natural Language Processing Research (2021.acl-short)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a language benchmark is a task devised that is restricted enough to be managable with current methods, but is deemed challenging enough to serve as a benchmark. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a language task as a benchmark and a baseline model to argue it is challenging enough to be a good one. |
| Outcome: | The proposed language benchmarks are based on a dataset and a language task . the proposed benchmarks can be used to measure progress towards the goal of the research . |
Mining, Assessing, and Improving Arguments in NLP and the Social Sciences (2023.eacl-tutorials)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a tutorial on argument quality assessment will focus on what makes an argument good or bad . argument quality is a field encompassing varying tasks on the automated analysis and synthesis of natural language arguments. |
| Approach: | This tutorial will focus on the assessment of argument quality across disciplines . authors will involve participants in annotation studies on the quality assessment . |
| Outcome: | The tutorial will focus on the assessment of argument quality across disciplines . it will involve participants in two annotation studies on the quality assessment and the improvement of quality . |
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. |
AutoPersuade: A Framework for Evaluating and Explaining Persuasive Arguments (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing tools for persuasion are well-equipped to identify which of a pre-existing set of messages is most persuasive, but they do not offer causal evidence on whether or how they have succeeded. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework for identifying topical components of persuasive arguments that are autopersuade. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework validates the results through human studies and out-of-sample predictions. |
Beyond Recognising Entailment: Formalising Natural Language Inference from an Argumentative Perspective (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for recognizing textual entailment lack a standardized definition of inference, making it difficult to compare methods trained on different datasets. |
| Approach: | They propose a rigorous approach to align entailment recognition with argumentation theory by using a tool to assist humans in annotating arguments according to the PTA. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model is based on a human-trained dataset and provides insights into non-expert annotator training. |