Are Large Language Models Reliable Argument Quality Annotators?
2404.09696
0
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.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the potential of using large language models (LLMs) as proxies for human annotators in assessing the quality of arguments.
- Evaluating argument quality is challenging, as it often requires domain-specific expertise and is subjective.
- The researchers investigate whether LLMs can provide consistent and reliable annotations, and whether using LLMs as additional annotators can improve the overall agreement between human experts and novices.
Plain English Explanation
Evaluating the quality of arguments is a crucial step in many systems that analyze arguments, such as systems that leverage argument mining. However, this is a difficult task because it typically requires experts with specific knowledge to assess the quality of arguments. Even experts may not always agree on the quality of an argument due to the inherent subjectivity of this assessment.
In this paper, the researchers explore the idea of using large language models (LLMs) as a way to help with assessing argument quality. LLMs are powerful AI models that can understand and generate human-like text. The researchers investigate whether LLMs can provide consistent and reliable annotations of argument quality, and whether using LLMs as additional annotators can improve the overall agreement between human experts and novices.
Technical Explanation
The researchers conducted a study to assess the capability of LLMs in evaluating argument quality. They used an established taxonomy of argument quality dimensions, which includes factors such as the logical validity of the argument, the relevance of the evidence provided, and the overall persuasiveness of the argument.
The researchers compared the annotations made by LLMs, human experts, and human novices on a dataset of arguments. They analyzed the level of agreement between the different types of annotators, and found that LLMs were able to produce consistent annotations that showed a moderately high level of agreement with the human expert annotations across most of the quality dimensions.
Furthermore, the researchers demonstrated that using LLMs as additional annotators can significantly improve the overall agreement between all the annotators. This suggests that LLMs can serve as a valuable tool for automated argument quality assessment, which could help streamline and accelerate the evaluation of large datasets of arguments.
Critical Analysis
The researchers acknowledge that while LLMs can provide consistent and reliable annotations, they may not always capture the nuances and contextual factors that human experts can. Additionally, the study was limited to a specific dataset and taxonomy of argument quality, and the researchers suggest that further research is needed to explore the generalizability of their findings to other types of arguments and quality assessment frameworks.
It is also important to consider the potential limitations of using LLMs for this task, such as the potential for biases or errors in the model's understanding of argument quality. Careful evaluation and monitoring would be necessary to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of the LLM-based annotations.
Conclusion
This paper presents a promising approach to leveraging large language models (LLMs) to support the assessment of argument quality. The researchers demonstrate that LLMs can provide consistent and reliable annotations, and that using LLMs as additional annotators can improve the overall agreement between human experts and novices. This suggests that LLMs could be a valuable tool for automated argument quality assessment, which could help streamline and accelerate the evaluation of large datasets of arguments. However, further research is needed to address the potential limitations and ensure the trustworthiness of LLM-based annotations.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
The Effectiveness of LLMs as Annotators: A Comparative Overview and Empirical Analysis of Direct Representation
Maja Pavlovic, Massimo Poesio
0
0
Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful support tools across various natural language tasks and a range of application domains. Recent studies focus on exploring their capabilities for data annotation. This paper provides a comparative overview of twelve studies investigating the potential of LLMs in labelling data. While the models demonstrate promising cost and time-saving benefits, there exist considerable limitations, such as representativeness, bias, sensitivity to prompt variations and English language preference. Leveraging insights from these studies, our empirical analysis further examines the alignment between human and GPT-generated opinion distributions across four subjective datasets. In contrast to the studies examining representation, our methodology directly obtains the opinion distribution from GPT. Our analysis thereby supports the minority of studies that are considering diverse perspectives when evaluating data annotation tasks and highlights the need for further research in this direction.
5/3/2024
💬
Argumentative Large Language Models for Explainable and Contestable Decision-Making
Gabriel Freedman, Adam Dejl, Deniz Gorur, Xiang Yin, Antonio Rago, Francesca Toni
0
0
The diversity of knowledge encoded in large language models (LLMs) and their ability to apply this knowledge zero-shot in a range of settings makes them a promising candidate for use in decision-making. However, they are currently limited by their inability to reliably provide outputs which are explainable and contestable. In this paper, we attempt to reconcile these strengths and weaknesses by introducing a method for supplementing LLMs with argumentative reasoning. Concretely, we introduce argumentative LLMs, a method utilising LLMs to construct argumentation frameworks, which then serve as the basis for formal reasoning in decision-making. The interpretable nature of these argumentation frameworks and formal reasoning means that any decision made by the supplemented LLM may be naturally explained to, and contested by, humans. We demonstrate the effectiveness of argumentative LLMs experimentally in the decision-making task of claim verification. We obtain results that are competitive with, and in some cases surpass, comparable state-of-the-art techniques.
5/6/2024
I'd Like to Have an Argument, Please: Argumentative Reasoning in Large Language Models
Adrian de Wynter, Tangming Yuan
0
0
We evaluate two large language models (LLMs) ability to perform argumentative reasoning. We experiment with argument mining (AM) and argument pair extraction (APE), and evaluate the LLMs' ability to recognize arguments under progressively more abstract input and output (I/O) representations (e.g., arbitrary label sets, graphs, etc.). Unlike the well-known evaluation of prompt phrasings, abstraction evaluation retains the prompt's phrasing but tests reasoning capabilities. We find that scoring-wise the LLMs match or surpass the SOTA in AM and APE, and under certain I/O abstractions LLMs perform well, even beating chain-of-thought--we call this symbolic prompting. However, statistical analysis on the LLMs outputs when subject to small, yet still human-readable, alterations in the I/O representations (e.g., asking for BIO tags as opposed to line numbers) showed that the models are not performing reasoning. This suggests that LLM applications to some tasks, such as data labelling and paper reviewing, must be done with care.
6/11/2024
🏅
Can formal argumentative reasoning enhance LLMs performances?
Federico Castagna, Isabel Sassoon, Simon Parsons
0
0
Recent years witnessed significant performance advancements in deep-learning-driven natural language models, with a strong focus on the development and release of Large Language Models (LLMs). These improvements resulted in better quality AI-generated output but rely on resource-expensive training and upgrading of models. Although different studies have proposed a range of techniques to enhance LLMs without retraining, none have considered computational argumentation as an option. This is a missed opportunity since computational argumentation is an intuitive mechanism that formally captures agents' interactions and the information conflict that may arise during such interplays, and so it seems well-suited for boosting the reasoning and conversational abilities of LLMs in a seamless manner. In this paper, we present a pipeline (MQArgEng) and preliminary study to evaluate the effect of introducing computational argumentation semantics on the performance of LLMs. Our experiment's goal was to provide a proof-of-concept and a feasibility analysis in order to foster (or deter) future research towards a fully-fledged argumentation engine plugin for LLMs. Exploratory results using the MT-Bench indicate that MQArgEng provides a moderate performance gain in most of the examined topical categories and, as such, show promise and warrant further research.
5/24/2024