Opening up Minds with Argumentative Dialogues
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.06400v1
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:47:16 GMT
- Title: Opening up Minds with Argumentative Dialogues
- Authors: Youmna Farag, Charlotte O. Brand, Jacopo Amidei, Paul Piwek, Tom
Stafford, Svetlana Stoyanchev, Andreas Vlachos
- Abstract summary: argumentative dialogues aim to open up people's minds to help them become more understanding to views that are unfamiliar or in opposition to their own convictions.
We present a dataset of 183 argumentative dialogues about 3 controversial topics: veganism, Brexit and COVID-19 vaccination.
Open-mindedness is measured before and after engaging in the dialogue using a questionnaire from the psychology literature.
- Score: 14.903849413791443
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Recent research on argumentative dialogues has focused on persuading people
to take some action, changing their stance on the topic of discussion, or
winning debates. In this work, we focus on argumentative dialogues that aim to
open up (rather than change) people's minds to help them become more
understanding to views that are unfamiliar or in opposition to their own
convictions. To this end, we present a dataset of 183 argumentative dialogues
about 3 controversial topics: veganism, Brexit and COVID-19 vaccination. The
dialogues were collected using the Wizard of Oz approach, where wizards
leverage a knowledge-base of arguments to converse with participants.
Open-mindedness is measured before and after engaging in the dialogue using a
questionnaire from the psychology literature, and success of the dialogue is
measured as the change in the participant's stance towards those who hold
opinions different to theirs. We evaluate two dialogue models: a
Wikipedia-based and an argument-based model. We show that while both models
perform closely in terms of opening up minds, the argument-based model is
significantly better on other dialogue properties such as engagement and
clarity.
Related papers
- Persuasion Should be Double-Blind: A Multi-Domain Dialogue Dataset With Faithfulness Based on Causal Theory of Mind [21.022976907694265]
Recent persuasive dialogue datasets often fail to align with real-world interpersonal interactions.
We introduce ToMMA, a novel multi-agent framework for dialogue generation guided by causal Theory of Mind.
We present CToMPersu, a multi-domain, multi-turn persuasive dialogue dataset.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-28T18:28:16Z) - Red Teaming Language Models for Processing Contradictory Dialogues [30.522961490270532]
Most language models currently available are prone to self-contradiction during dialogues.
This study explores a novel contradictory dialogue processing task that aims to detect and modify contradictory statements in a conversation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-16T14:27:32Z) - VD-PCR: Improving Visual Dialog with Pronoun Coreference Resolution [79.05412803762528]
The visual dialog task requires an AI agent to interact with humans in multi-round dialogs based on a visual environment.
We propose VD-PCR, a novel framework to improve Visual Dialog understanding with Pronoun Coreference Resolution.
With the proposed implicit and explicit methods, VD-PCR achieves state-of-the-art experimental results on the VisDial dataset.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-05-29T15:29:50Z) - 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) - Structural Modeling for Dialogue Disentanglement [43.352833140317486]
Multi-party dialogue context Tangled multi-party dialogue context leads to challenges for dialogue reading comprehension.
This work designs a novel model to disentangle multi-party history into threads, by taking dialogue structure features into account.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-10-15T11:28:43Z) - Who Responded to Whom: The Joint Effects of Latent Topics and Discourse
in Conversation Structure [53.77234444565652]
We identify the responding relations in the conversation discourse, which link response utterances to their initiations.
We propose a model to learn latent topics and discourse in word distributions, and predict pairwise initiation-response links.
Experimental results on both English and Chinese conversations show that our model significantly outperforms the previous state of the arts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-04-17T17:46:00Z) - Advances in Multi-turn Dialogue Comprehension: A Survey [51.215629336320305]
We review the previous methods from the perspective of dialogue modeling.
We discuss three typical patterns of dialogue modeling that are widely-used in dialogue comprehension tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-03-04T15:50:17Z) - 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) - Rethinking Dialogue State Tracking with Reasoning [76.0991910623001]
This paper proposes to track dialogue states gradually with reasoning over dialogue turns with the help of the back-end data.
Empirical results demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art methods by 38.6% in terms of joint belief accuracy for MultiWOZ 2.1.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-05-27T02:05:33Z) - 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.