AutoPersuade: A Framework for Evaluating and Explaining Persuasive Arguments
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.08917v1
- Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:46:05 GMT
- Title: AutoPersuade: A Framework for Evaluating and Explaining Persuasive Arguments
- Authors: Till Raphael Saenger, Musashi Hinck, Justin Grimmer, Brandon M. Stewart,
- Abstract summary: 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.
- Score: 0.5242869847419834
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
- Abstract: We introduce AutoPersuade, a three-part framework for constructing persuasive messages. First, we curate a large dataset of arguments with human evaluations. Next, we develop a novel topic model to identify argument features that influence persuasiveness. Finally, we use this model to predict the effectiveness of new arguments and assess the causal impact of different components to provide explanations. We validate AutoPersuade through an experimental study on arguments for veganism, demonstrating its effectiveness with human studies and out-of-sample predictions.
Related papers
- AI, write an essay for me: A large-scale comparison of human-written
versus ChatGPT-generated essays [66.36541161082856]
ChatGPT and similar generative AI models have attracted hundreds of millions of users.
This study compares human-written versus ChatGPT-generated argumentative student essays.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-24T12:58:28Z) - Analyzing and Evaluating Faithfulness in Dialogue Summarization [67.07947198421421]
We first perform the fine-grained human analysis on the faithfulness of dialogue summaries and observe that over 35% of generated summaries are faithfully inconsistent respective the source dialogues.
We present a new model-level faithfulness evaluation method. It examines generation models with multi-choice questions created by rule-based transformations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-10-21T07:22:43Z) - 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) - Towards Understanding Persuasion in Computational Argumentation [10.089382889894246]
Opinion formation and persuasion in argumentation are affected by three major factors: the argument itself, the source of the argument, and the properties of the audience.
This thesis makes several contributions to understand the relative effect of the source, audience, and language in computational persuasion.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-10-03T19:36:21Z) - Exploring Discourse Structures for Argument Impact Classification [48.909640432326654]
This paper empirically shows that the discourse relations between two arguments along the context path are essential factors for identifying the persuasive power of an argument.
We propose DisCOC to inject and fuse the sentence-level structural information with contextualized features derived from large-scale language models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-02T06:49:19Z) - 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) - The Role of Pragmatic and Discourse Context in Determining Argument
Impact [39.70446357000737]
This paper presents a new dataset to initiate the study of this aspect of argumentation.
It consists of a diverse collection of arguments covering 741 controversial topics and comprising over 47,000 claims.
We propose predictive models that incorporate the pragmatic and discourse context of argumentative claims and show that they outperform models that rely on claim-specific linguistic features for predicting the perceived impact of individual claims within a particular line of argument.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-04-06T23:00:37Z) - 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.