اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدBelief-based Generation of Argumentative Claims
84
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
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 generation 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.
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.
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.
Recent years have seen the proliferation of disinformation and misinformation online, thanks to the freedom of expression on the Internet and to the rise of social media. Two solutions were proposed to address the problem: (i) manual fact-checking, w
hich is accurate and credible, but slow and non-scalable, and (ii) automatic fact-checking, which is fast and scalable, but lacks explainability and credibility. With the accumulation of enough manually fact-checked claims, a middle-ground approach has emerged: checking whether a given claim has previously been fact-checked. This can be made automatically, and thus fast, while also offering credibility and explainability, thanks to the human fact-checking and explanations in the associated fact-checking article. This is a relatively new and understudied research direction, and here we focus on claims made in a political debate, where context really matters. Thus, we study the impact of modeling the context of the claim: both on the source side, i.e., in the debate, as well as on the target side, i.e., in the fact-checking explanation document. We do this by modeling the local context, the global context, as well as by means of co-reference resolution, and reasoning over the target text using Transformer-XH. The experimental results show that each of these represents a valuable information source, but that modeling the source-side context is more important, and can yield 10+ points of absolute improvement.
We present a computational exploration of argument critique writing by young students. Middle school students were asked to criticize an argument presented in the prompt, focusing on identifying and explaining the reasoning flaws. This task resembles
an established college-level argument critique task. Lexical and discourse features that utilize detailed domain knowledge to identify critiques exist for the college task but do not perform well on the young students data. Instead, transformer-based architecture (e.g., BERT) fine-tuned on a large corpus of critique essays from the college task performs much better (over 20% improvement in F1 score). Analysis of the performance of various configurations of the system suggests that while childrens writing does not exhibit the standard discourse structure of an argumentative essay, it does share basic local sequential structures with the more mature writers.
The purpose of an argumentative text is to support a certain conclusion. Yet, they are often omitted, expecting readers to infer them rather. While appropriate when reading an individual text, this rhetorical device limits accessibility when browsing
many texts (e.g., on a search engine or on social media). In these scenarios, an explicit conclusion makes for a good candidate summary of an argumentative text. This is especially true if the conclusion is informative, emphasizing specific concepts from the text. With this paper we introduce the task of generating informative conclusions: First, Webis-ConcluGen-21 is compiled, a large-scale corpus of 136,996 samples of argumentative texts and their conclusions. Second, two paradigms for conclusion generation are investigated; one extractive, the other abstractive in nature. The latter exploits argumentative knowledge that augment the data via control codes and finetuning the BART model on several subsets of the corpus. Third, insights are provided into the suitability of our corpus for the task, the differences between the two generation paradigms, the trade-off between informativeness and conciseness, and the impact of encoding argumentative knowledge. The corpus, code, and the trained models are publicly available.
الأسئلة المقترحة
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
