اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدArgument Mining Driven Analysis of Peer-Reviews
262
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Peer reviewing is a central process in modern research and essential for ensuring high quality and reliability of published work. At the same time, it is a time-consuming process and increasing interest in emerging fields often results in a high review workload, especially for senior researchers in this area. How to cope with this problem is an open question and it is vividly discussed across all major conferences. In this work, we propose an Argument Mining based approach for the assistance of editors, meta-reviewers, and reviewers. We demonstrate that the decision process in the field of scientific publications is driven by arguments and automatic argument identification is helpful in various use-cases. One of our findings is that arguments used in the peer-review process differ from arguments in other domains making the transfer of pre-trained models difficult. Therefore, we provide the community with a new peer-review dataset from different computer science conferences with annotated arguments. In our extensive empirical evaluation, we show that Argument Mining can be used to efficiently extract the most relevant parts from reviews, which are paramount for the publication decision. The process remains interpretable since the extracted arguments can be highlighted in a review without detaching them from their context.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
Argumentation is a type of discourse where speakers try to persuade their audience about the reasonableness of a claim by presenting supportive arguments. Most work in argument mining has focused on modeling arguments in monologues. We propose a comp
utational model for argument mining in online persuasive discussion forums that brings together the micro-level (argument as product) and macro-level (argument as process) models of argumentation. Fundamentally, this approach relies on identifying relations between components of arguments in a discussion thread. Our approach for relation prediction uses contextual information in terms of fine-tuning a pre-trained language model and leveraging discourse relations based on Rhetorical Structure Theory. We additionally propose a candidate selection method to automatically predict what parts of ones argument will be targeted by other participants in the discussion. Our models obtain significant improvements compared to recent state-of-the-art approaches using pointer networks and a pre-trained language model.
Decision-making usually takes five steps: identifying the problem, collecting data, extracting evidence, identifying pro and con arguments, and making decisions. Focusing on extracting evidence, this paper presents a hybrid model that combines latent
Dirichlet allocation and word embeddings to obtain external knowledge from structured and unstructured data. We study the task of sentence-level argument mining, as arguments mostly require some degree of world knowledge to be identified and understood. Given a topic and a sentence, the goal is to classify whether a sentence represents an argument in regard to the topic. We use a topic model to extract topic- and sentence-specific evidence from the structured knowledge base Wikidata, building a graph based on the cosine similarity between the entity word vectors of Wikidata and the vector of the given sentence. Also, we build a second graph based on topic-specific articles found via Google to tackle the general incompleteness of structured knowledge bases. Combining these graphs, we obtain a graph-based model which, as our evaluation shows, successfully capitalizes on both structured and unstructured data.
We introduce Hocalarim (MyProfessors), the largest student review dataset available for the Turkish language. It consists of over 5000 professor reviews left online by students, with different aspects of education rated on a scale of 1 to 5 stars. We
investigate the properties of the dataset and present its statistics. We examine the impact of students institution type on their ratings and the correlation of students bias to give positive or negative feedback.
Online education platforms enable teachers to share a large number of educational resources such as questions to form exercises and quizzes for students. With large volumes of available questions, it is important to have an automated way to quantify
their properties and intelligently select them for students, enabling effective and personalized learning experiences. In this work, we propose a framework for mining insights from educational questions at scale. We utilize the state-of-the-art Bayesian deep learning method, in particular partial variational auto-encoders (p-VAE), to analyze real students answers to a large collection of questions. Based on p-VAE, we propose two novel metrics that quantify question quality and difficulty, respectively, and a personalized strategy to adaptively select questions for students. We apply our proposed framework to a real-world dataset with tens of thousands of questions and tens of millions of answers from an online education platform. Our framework not only demonstrates promising results in terms of statistical metrics but also obtains highly consistent results with domain experts evaluation.
In this work we address the problem of argument search. The purpose of argument search is the distillation of pro and contra arguments for requested topics from large text corpora. In previous works, the usual approach is to use a standard search eng
ine to extract text parts which are relevant to the given topic and subsequently use an argument recognition algorithm to select arguments from them. The main challenge in the argument recognition task, which is also known as argument mining, is that often sentences containing arguments are structurally similar to purely informative sentences without any stance about the topic. In fact, they only differ semantically. Most approaches use topic or search term information only for the first search step and therefore assume that arguments can be classified independently of a topic. We argue that topic information is crucial for argument mining, since the topic defines the semantic context of an argument. Precisely, we propose different models for the classification of arguments, which take information about a topic of an argument into account. Moreover, to enrich the context of a topic and to let models understand the context of the potential argument better, we integrate information from different external sources such as Knowledge Graphs or pre-trained NLP models. Our evaluation shows that considering topic information, especially in connection with external information, provides a significant performance boost for the argument mining task.
الأسئلة المقترحة
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
