Belief-based Generation of Argumentative Claims
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2101.09765v2
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:03:53 GMT
- Title: Belief-based Generation of Argumentative Claims
- Authors: Milad Alshomary, Wei-Fan Chen, Timon Gurcke, and Henning Wachsmuth
- Abstract summary: We study 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 people's 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 results reveal the limitations of modeling users' beliefs based on their stances, but demonstrate the potential of encoding beliefs into argumentative texts.
- Score: 13.590746709967373
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: 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 people's 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.
Related papers
- AutoPersuade: A Framework for Evaluating and Explaining Persuasive Arguments [0.5242869847419834]
We introduce AutoPersuade, a framework for constructing persuasive messages.
We develop a novel topic model to identify argument features that influence persuasiveness.
We use this model to predict the effectiveness of new arguments and assess the causal impact of different components.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-11T15:46:05Z) - Conceptual and Unbiased Reasoning in Language Models [98.90677711523645]
We propose a novel conceptualization framework that forces models to perform conceptual reasoning on abstract questions.
We show that existing large language models fall short on conceptual reasoning, dropping 9% to 28% on various benchmarks.
We then discuss how models can improve since high-level abstract reasoning is key to unbiased and generalizable decision-making.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-30T00:53:53Z) - Exploring Jiu-Jitsu Argumentation for Writing Peer Review Rebuttals [70.22179850619519]
In many domains of argumentation, people's arguments are driven by so-called attitude roots.
Recent work in psychology suggests that instead of directly countering surface-level reasoning, one should follow an argumentation style inspired by the Jiu-Jitsu'soft' combat system.
We are the first to explore Jiu-Jitsu argumentation for peer review by proposing the novel task of attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-07T13:54:01Z) - A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [50.69905074548764]
We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way.
Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z) - Conclusion-based Counter-Argument Generation [26.540485804067536]
In real-world debates, the most common way to counter an argument is to reason against its main point, that is, its conclusion.
We propose a multitask approach that jointly learns to generate both the conclusion and the counter of an input argument.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-01-24T10:49:01Z) - Persua: A Visual Interactive System to Enhance the Persuasiveness of
Arguments in Online Discussion [52.49981085431061]
Enhancing people's ability to write persuasive arguments could contribute to the effectiveness and civility in online communication.
We derived four design goals for a tool that helps users improve the persuasiveness of arguments in online discussions.
Persua is an interactive visual system that provides example-based guidance on persuasive strategies to enhance the persuasiveness of arguments.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-04-16T08:07:53Z) - Argument Undermining: Counter-Argument Generation by Attacking Weak
Premises [31.463885580010192]
We explore argument undermining, that is, countering an argument by attacking one of its premises.
We propose a pipeline approach that first assesses the premises' strength and then generates a counter-argument targeting the weak ones.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-05-25T08:39:14Z) - Strategic Argumentation Dialogues for Persuasion: Framework and
Experiments Based on Modelling the Beliefs and Concerns of the Persuadee [6.091096843566857]
Two key dimensions for determining whether an argument is good in a particular dialogue are the degree to which the intended audience believes the argument and counterarguments, and the impact that the argument has on the concerns of the intended audience.
We present a framework for modelling persuadees in terms of their beliefs and concerns, and for harnessing these models in optimizing the choice of move in persuasion dialogues.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-01-28T08:49:24Z) - 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) - What Changed Your Mind: The Roles of Dynamic Topics and Discourse in
Argumentation Process [78.4766663287415]
This paper presents a study that automatically analyzes the key factors in argument persuasiveness.
We propose a novel neural model that is able to track the changes of latent topics and discourse in argumentative conversations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-02-10T04:27:48Z)
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.