Are Large Language Models Reliable Argument Quality Annotators?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.09696v1
• Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:54:27 GMT
• Title: Are Large Language Models Reliable Argument Quality Annotators?
• Authors: Nailia Mirzakhmedova, Marcel Gohsen, Chia Hao Chang, Benno Stein,
• Abstract summary: We study the potential of using state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) as proxies for argument quality annotators. Our findings highlight that LLMs can produce consistent annotations, with a moderately high agreement with human experts.
• Score: 7.966402845339264
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating the quality of arguments is a crucial aspect of any system leveraging argument mining. However, it is a challenge to obtain reliable and consistent annotations regarding argument quality, as this usually requires domain-specific expertise of the annotators. Even among experts, the assessment of argument quality is often inconsistent due to the inherent subjectivity of this task. In this paper, we study the potential of using state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) as proxies for argument quality annotators. To assess the capability of LLMs in this regard, we analyze the agreement between model, human expert, and human novice annotators based on an established taxonomy of argument quality dimensions. Our findings highlight that LLMs can produce consistent annotations, with a moderately high agreement with human experts across most of the quality dimensions. Moreover, we show that using LLMs as additional annotators can significantly improve the agreement between annotators. These results suggest that LLMs can serve as a valuable tool for automated argument quality assessment, thus streamlining and accelerating the evaluation of large argument datasets.

Related papers

• Towards Understanding the Robustness of LLM-based Evaluations under Perturbations [9.944512689015998]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can serve as automatic evaluators for non-standardized metrics in summarization and dialog-based tasks. We conduct experiments across multiple prompting strategies to examine how LLMs fare as quality evaluators when compared with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T13:31:58Z)
• ConQRet: Benchmarking Fine-Grained Evaluation of Retrieval Augmented Argumentation with LLM Judges [23.179246872272362]
  Computational argumentation has become increasingly important in today's polarized environment. We propose a new benchmark featuring long and complex human-authored arguments on debated topics, grounded in real-world websites. Our proposed LLM Judges and the ConQRet benchmark can enable rapid progress in computational argumentation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-06T17:35:52Z)
• Persuasiveness of Generated Free-Text Rationales in Subjective Decisions: A Case Study on Pairwise Argument Ranking [4.1017420444369215]
  We analyze generated free-text rationales in tasks with subjective answers. We focus on pairwise argument ranking, a highly subjective task with significant potential for real-world applications. Our findings suggest that open-source LLMs, particularly Llama2-70B-chat, are capable of providing highly persuasive rationalizations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T00:28:33Z)
• Argument Quality Assessment in the Age of Instruction-Following Large Language Models [45.832808321166844]
  A critical task in any such application is the assessment of an argument's quality. We identify the diversity of quality notions and the subjectiveness of their perception as the main hurdles towards substantial progress on argument quality assessment. We argue that the capabilities of instruction-following large language models (LLMs) to leverage knowledge across contexts enable a much more reliable assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-24T10:43:21Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks [65.69651759036535]
  We analyze whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as reliable alternatives to humans. This paper explores both conventional tasks (e.g., story generation) and alignment tasks (e.g., math reasoning) We find that LLM evaluators can generate unnecessary criteria or omit crucial criteria, resulting in a slight deviation from the experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate [57.71597869337909]
  We build a multi-agent referee team called ChatEval to autonomously discuss and evaluate the quality of generated responses from different models. Our analysis shows that ChatEval transcends mere textual scoring, offering a human-mimicking evaluation process for reliable assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-14T15:13:04Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)
• Contextualizing Argument Quality Assessment with Relevant Knowledge [11.367297319588411]
  SPARK is a novel method for scoring argument quality based on contextualization via relevant knowledge. We devise four augmentations that leverage large language models to provide feedback, infer hidden assumptions, supply a similar-quality argument, or give a counter-argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-20T21:04:58Z)
• Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgment [56.935731584323996]
  Large language models (LLMs) claim that they can assist with relevance judgments. It is not clear whether automated judgments can reliably be used in evaluations of retrieval systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-13T13:08:38Z)

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.