High Quality Real-Time Structured Debate Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00209v1
• Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 01:39:38 GMT
• Title: High Quality Real-Time Structured Debate Generation
• Authors: Eric Bolton, Alex Calderwood, Niles Christensen, Jerome Kafrouni, Iddo Drori
• Abstract summary: We define debate trees and paths for generating debates while enforcing a high level structure and grammar. We leverage a large corpus of tree-structured debates that have metadata associated with each argument. Our results demonstrate the ability to generate debates in real-time on complex topics at a quality that is close to humans.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Automatically generating debates is a challenging task that requires an understanding of arguments and how to negate or support them. In this work we define debate trees and paths for generating debates while enforcing a high level structure and grammar. We leverage a large corpus of tree-structured debates that have metadata associated with each argument. We develop a framework for generating plausible debates which is agnostic to the sentence embedding model. Our results demonstrate the ability to generate debates in real-time on complex topics at a quality that is close to humans, as evaluated by the style, content, and strategy metrics used for judging competitive human debates. In the spirit of reproducible research we make our data, models, and code publicly available.

Related papers

• Training Language Models to Win Debates with Self-Play Improves Judge Accuracy [8.13173791334223]
  We test the robustness of debate as a method of scalable oversight by training models to debate with data generated via self-play. We find that language model based evaluators answer questions more accurately when judging models optimized to win debates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-25T05:28:33Z)
• Debatrix: Multi-dimensional Debate Judge with Iterative Chronological Analysis Based on LLM [51.43102092480804]
  Debatrix is an automated debate judge based on Large Language Models (LLMs) To align with real-world debate scenarios, we introduced the PanelBench benchmark, comparing our system's performance to actual debate outcomes. The findings indicate a notable enhancement over directly using LLMs for debate evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-12T18:19:47Z)
• Argue with Me Tersely: Towards Sentence-Level Counter-Argument Generation [62.069374456021016]
  We present the ArgTersely benchmark for sentence-level counter-argument generation. We also propose Arg-LlaMA for generating high-quality counter-argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-21T06:51:34Z)
• DebateKG: Automatic Policy Debate Case Creation with Semantic Knowledge Graphs [0.0]
  We show that effective debate cases can be constructed using constrained shortest path traversals on Argumentative Semantic Knowledge Graphs. We significantly improve upon DebateSum by introducing 53180 new examples. We create a unique method for evaluating which knowledge graphs are better in the context of producing policy debate cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-09T04:19:19Z)
• QRelScore: Better Evaluating Generated Questions with Deeper Understanding of Context-aware Relevance [54.48031346496593]
  We propose $textbfQRelScore$, a context-aware evaluation metric for $underlinetextbfRel$evance evaluation metric. Based on off-the-shelf language models such as BERT and GPT2, QRelScore employs both word-level hierarchical matching and sentence-level prompt-based generation. Compared with existing metrics, our experiments demonstrate that QRelScore is able to achieve a higher correlation with human judgments while being much more robust to adversarial samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-29T07:39:53Z)
• Automatic Debate Evaluation with Argumentation Semantics and Natural Language Argument Graph Networks [2.4861619769660637]
  We propose an original hybrid method to automatically evaluate argumentative debates. For that purpose, we combine concepts from argumentation theory with Transformer-based architectures and neural graph networks. We obtain promising results that lay the basis on an unexplored new instance of the automatic analysis of natural language arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-28T11:09:07Z)
• DEBACER: a method for slicing moderated debates [55.705662163385966]
  Partitioning debates into blocks with the same subject is essential for understanding. We propose a new algorithm, DEBACER, which partitions moderated debates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-10T10:39:07Z)
• ConvoSumm: Conversation Summarization Benchmark and Improved Abstractive Summarization with Argument Mining [61.82562838486632]
  We crowdsource four new datasets on diverse online conversation forms of news comments, discussion forums, community question answering forums, and email threads. We benchmark state-of-the-art models on our datasets and analyze characteristics associated with the data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-01T22:17:13Z)
• DebateSum: A large-scale argument mining and summarization dataset [0.0]
  DebateSum consists of 187,386 unique pieces of evidence with corresponding argument and extractive summaries. We train several transformer summarization models to benchmark summarization performance on DebateSum. We present a search engine for this dataset which is utilized extensively by members of the National Speech and Debate Association.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-14T10:06:57Z)
• Exploring the Role of Argument Structure in Online Debate Persuasion [39.74040217761505]
  We investigate the role of discourse structure of the arguments from online debates in their persuasiveness. We find that argument structure features play an essential role in achieving the better predictive performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-07T17:34:50Z)
• Aspect-Controlled Neural Argument Generation [65.91772010586605]
  We train a language model for argument generation that can be controlled on a fine-grained level to generate sentence-level arguments for a given topic, stance, and aspect. Our evaluation shows that our generation model is able to generate high-quality, aspect-specific arguments. These arguments can be used to improve the performance of stance detection models via data augmentation and to generate counter-arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-30T20:17:22Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.