From Argumentation to Deliberation: Perspectivized Stance Vectors for Fine-grained (Dis)agreement Analysis

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.09644v1
• Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 13:08:46 GMT
• Title: From Argumentation to Deliberation: Perspectivized Stance Vectors for Fine-grained (Dis)agreement Analysis
• Authors: Moritz Plenz, Philipp Heinisch, Janosch Gehring, Philipp Cimiano, Anette Frank,
• Abstract summary: We develop a framework for a deliberative analysis of arguments in a computational argumentation setup. We conduct a fine-grained analysis of perspectivized stances expressed in the arguments of different arguers or stakeholders on a given issue. We formalize this analysis in Perspectivized Stance Vectors that characterize the individual perspectivized stances of all arguers on a given issue.
• Score: 17.184962277653902
• License:
• Abstract: Debating over conflicting issues is a necessary first step towards resolving conflicts. However, intrinsic perspectives of an arguer are difficult to overcome by persuasive argumentation skills. Proceeding from a debate to a deliberative process, where we can identify actionable options for resolving a conflict requires a deeper analysis of arguments and the perspectives they are grounded in - as it is only from there that one can derive mutually agreeable resolution steps. In this work we develop a framework for a deliberative analysis of arguments in a computational argumentation setup. We conduct a fine-grained analysis of perspectivized stances expressed in the arguments of different arguers or stakeholders on a given issue, aiming not only to identify their opposing views, but also shared perspectives arising from their attitudes, values or needs. We formalize this analysis in Perspectivized Stance Vectors that characterize the individual perspectivized stances of all arguers on a given issue. We construct these vectors by determining issue- and argument-specific concepts, and predict an arguer's stance relative to each of them. The vectors allow us to measure a modulated (dis)agreement between arguers, structured by perspectives, which allows us to identify actionable points for conflict resolution, as a first step towards deliberation.

Related papers

• Overview of PerpectiveArg2024: The First Shared Task on Perspective Argument Retrieval [56.66761232081188]
  We present a novel dataset covering demographic and socio-cultural (socio) variables, such as age, gender, and political attitude, representing minority and majority groups in society. We find substantial challenges in incorporating perspectivism, especially when aiming for personalization based solely on the text of arguments without explicitly providing socio profiles. While we bootstrap perspective argument retrieval, further research is essential to optimize retrieval systems to facilitate personalization and reduce polarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T03:14:57Z)
• PAKT: Perspectivized Argumentation Knowledge Graph and Tool for Deliberation Analysis (with Supplementary Materials) [18.436817251174357]
  We propose PAKT, a Perspectivized Argumentation Knowledge Graph and Tool. The graph structures the argumentative space across diverse topics, where arguments are divided into premises and conclusions. We show how to construct PAKT and conduct case studies on the obtained multifaceted argumentation graph.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T13:47:19Z)
• An Empirical Analysis of Diversity in Argument Summarization [4.128725138940779]
  We introduce three aspects of diversity: those of opinions, annotators, and sources. We evaluate approaches to a popular argument summarization task called Key Point Analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T16:26:52Z)
• 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)
• Towards CausalGPT: A Multi-Agent Approach for Faithful Knowledge Reasoning via Promoting Causal Consistency in LLMs [55.66353783572259]
  Causal-Consistency Chain-of-Thought harnesses multi-agent collaboration to bolster the faithfulness and causality of foundation models. Our framework demonstrates significant superiority over state-of-the-art methods through extensive and comprehensive evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T04:59:21Z)
• Modeling Appropriate Language in Argumentation [34.90028129715041]
  We operationalize appropriate language in argumentation for the first time. We derive a new taxonomy of 14 dimensions that determine inappropriate language in online discussions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T09:17:05Z)
• 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)
• Collective Argumentation: The Case of Aggregating Support-Relations of Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks [0.0]
  We analyze what semantic properties of bipolar argumentation frameworks can be preserved by aggregation rules. In this paper, we assume that under bipolar argumentation frameworks, individuals are equipped with a set of arguments and a set of attacks between arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-22T02:45:10Z)
• 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)
• A model to support collective reasoning: Formalization, analysis and computational assessment [1.126958266688732]
  We propose a new model to represent human debates and methods to obtain collective conclusions from them. This model overcomes drawbacks of existing approaches by allowing users to introduce new pieces of information into the discussion. We show that aggregated opinions can be coherent even if there is a lack of consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-14T06:55:32Z)

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.