اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدDetermining Relative Argument Specificity and Stance for Complex Argumentative Structures
211
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Systems for automatic argument generation and debate require the ability to (1) determine the stance of any claims employed in the argument and (2) assess the specificity of each claim relative to the argument context. Existing work on understanding claim specificity and stance, however, has been limited to the study of argumentative structures that are relatively shallow, most often consisting of a single claim that directly supports or opposes the argument thesis. In this paper, we tackle these tasks in the context of complex arguments on a diverse set of topics. In particular, our dataset consists of manually curated argument trees for 741 controversial topics covering 95,312 unique claims; lines of argument are generally of depth 2 to 6. We find that as the distance between a pair of claims increases along the argument path, determining the relative specificity of a pair of claims becomes easier and determining their relative stance becomes harder.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
In this paper, we compose a new task for deep argumentative structure analysis that goes beyond shallow discourse structure analysis. The idea is that argumentative relations can reasonably be represented with a small set of predefined patterns. For
example, using value judgment and bipolar causality, we can explain a support relation between two argumentative segments as follows: Segment 1 states that something is good, and Segment 2 states that it is good because it promotes something good when it happens. We are motivated by the following questions: (i) how do we formulate the task?, (ii) can a reasonable pattern set be created?, and (iii) do the patterns work? To examine the task feasibility, we conduct a three-stage, detailed annotation study using 357 argumentative relations from the argumentative microtext corpus, a small, but highly reliable corpus. We report the coverage of explanations captured by our patterns on a test set composed of 270 relations. Our coverage result of 74.6% indicates that argumentative relations can reasonably be explained by our small pattern set. Our agreement result of 85.9% shows that a reasonable inter-annotator agreement can be achieved. To assist with future work in computational argumentation, the annotated corpus is made publicly available.
Discourse relations among arguments reveal logical structures of a debate conversation. However, no prior work has explicitly studied how the sequence of discourse relations influence a claims impact. This paper empirically shows that the discourse r
elations between two arguments along the context path are essential factors for identifying the persuasive power of an argument. We further propose DisCOC to inject and fuse the sentence-level structural discourse information with contextualized features derived from large-scale language models. Experimental results and extensive analysis show that the attention and gate mechanisms that explicitly model contexts and texts can indeed help the argument impact classification task defined by Durmus et al. (2019), and discourse structures among the context path of the claim to be classified can further boost the performance.
In the context of chit-chat dialogues it has been shown that endowing systems with a persona profile is important to produce more coherent and meaningful conversations. Still, the representation of such personas has thus far been limited to a fact-ba
sed representation (e.g. I have two cats.). We argue that these representations remain superficial w.r.t. the complexity of human personality. In this work, we propose to make a step forward and investigate stance-based persona, trying to grasp more profound characteristics, such as opinions, values, and beliefs to drive language generation. To this end, we introduce a novel dataset allowing to explore different stance-based persona representations and their impact on claim generation, showing that they are able to grasp abstract and profound aspects of the author persona.
When engaging in argumentative discourse, skilled human debaters tailor claims to the beliefs of the audience, to construct effective arguments. Recently, the field of computational argumentation witnessed extensive effort to address the automatic ge
neration of arguments. However, existing approaches do not perform any audience-specific adaptation. In this work, we aim to bridge this gap by studying the task of belief-based claim generation: Given a controversial topic and a set of beliefs, generate an argumentative claim tailored to the beliefs. To tackle this task, we model the peoples prior beliefs through their stances on controversial topics and extend state-of-the-art text generation models to generate claims conditioned on the beliefs. Our automatic evaluation confirms the ability of our approach to adapt claims to a set of given beliefs. In a manual study, we additionally evaluate the generated claims in terms of informativeness and their likelihood to be uttered by someone with a respective belief. Our results reveal the limitations of modeling users beliefs based on their stances, but demonstrate the potential of encoding beliefs into argumentative texts, laying the ground for future exploration of audience reach.
Political stance detection has become an important task due to the increasingly polarized political ideologies. Most existing works focus on identifying perspectives in news articles or social media posts, while social entities, such as individuals a
nd organizations, produce these texts and actually take stances. In this paper, we propose the novel task of entity stance prediction, which aims to predict entities stances given their social and political context. Specifically, we retrieve facts from Wikipedia about social entities regarding contemporary U.S. politics. We then annotate social entities stances towards political ideologies with the help of domain experts. After defining the task of entity stance prediction, we propose a graph-based solution, which constructs a heterogeneous information network from collected facts and adopts gated relational graph convolutional networks for representation learning. Our model is then trained with a combination of supervised, self-supervised and unsupervised loss functions, which are motivated by multiple social and political phenomenons. We conduct extensive experiments to compare our method with existing text and graph analysis baselines. Our model achieves highest stance detection accuracy and yields inspiring insights regarding social entity stances. We further conduct ablation study and parameter analysis to study the mechanism and effectiveness of our proposed approach.
الأسئلة المقترحة
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
