Which Side Are You On? A Multi-task Dataset for End-to-End Argument Summarisation and Evaluation
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper introduces a new multi-task dataset called "Which Side Are You On?" for end-to-end argument summarization and evaluation.
- The dataset contains over 15,000 arguments on 30 controversial topics, with annotations for summarization, stance, and quality.
- The researchers developed new models and evaluation metrics to tackle the challenges of argument summarization and stance prediction.
Plain English Explanation
The paper presents a new dataset that can be used to train and test systems for summarizing arguments and determining which side of an issue they support. Argument summarization is the task of taking a longer argument and distilling it down to the key points in a concise way. Stance prediction involves figuring out which side of a debate the argument is supporting.
The dataset covers 30 controversial topics like abortion, gun control, and immigration. For each topic, there are many different arguments made by people on both sides of the issue. These arguments have been carefully annotated - some of the annotations indicate what the main points of the argument are, and others show which side of the debate the argument is supporting.
This rich dataset allows researchers to develop and evaluate new models that can not only summarize arguments effectively, but also correctly identify the stance or position being argued for. This is a challenging task, as arguments can be nuanced and the same key points could be used to support different positions. The new evaluation metrics introduced in the paper help assess how well systems are performing on these interrelated tasks.
Having a high-quality dataset like this one is an important step forward for the field of argument mining and summarization. It will enable further advancements in automatically understanding the structure and persuasiveness of human arguments, which has applications in areas like policy debates, legal reasoning, and online discussion forums.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a new multi-task dataset called "Which Side Are You On?" for end-to-end argument summarization and evaluation. The dataset contains over 15,000 arguments on 30 controversial topics, with annotations for summarization, stance, and quality.
To create the dataset, the authors crowdsourced arguments from online debate forums and annotated them using a rigorous process. For each argument, they asked annotators to write a concise summary, identify the stance (pro or con), and rate the overall quality. The authors developed novel metrics to evaluate how well models perform on the interrelated tasks of summarization and stance prediction.
The researchers then used the dataset to benchmark several baselines for end-to-end argument summarization and stance prediction. They found that strong performance on one task did not necessarily translate to the other, highlighting the challenges involved. The authors propose new models that jointly optimize for both tasks, demonstrating improvements over prior approaches.
The "Which Side Are You On?" dataset fills an important gap in the field of argument mining and summarization. Prior datasets have tended to be smaller in scale, cover fewer topics, or lack the breadth of annotations present here. This new resource enables the development and rigorous evaluation of models that can truly understand the nuances of human argumentation.
Critical Analysis
The "Which Side Are You On?" dataset and the associated models and evaluation metrics represent a significant advance in the field of argument summarization and analysis. The large scale, broad topic coverage, and rich annotations make this dataset a valuable resource for future research.
One potential limitation is the focus on written arguments from online debate forums. While this is an important domain, it would be worthwhile to expand the dataset to include other forms of argumentation, such as speeches, interviews, or even multimodal arguments that combine text, images, and video.
Additionally, the authors acknowledge that their current models still struggle with certain aspects of the task, such as correctly identifying the stance when the arguments are more subtle or nuanced. Further work is needed to develop more sophisticated approaches that can better capture the underlying logic and reasoning of human arguments.
It would also be interesting to explore how this technology could be applied in real-world settings, such as to assist policymakers, journalists, or the general public in navigating complex debates. The potential for misuse, such as in the spread of misinformation, should also be carefully considered and addressed.
Overall, the "Which Side Are You On?" dataset and the related research represent an important step forward in the field of argument analysis. By continuing to push the boundaries of what is possible, the authors are helping to build tools that can enhance our understanding and critical thinking around important societal issues.
Conclusion
This paper introduces a new multi-task dataset called "Which Side Are You On?" that can be used to train and evaluate systems for summarizing arguments and predicting the stance they support. The dataset contains over 15,000 annotated arguments on 30 controversial topics, providing a rich resource for researchers in the field of argument mining and analysis.
The authors developed novel models and evaluation metrics to tackle the challenges of this task, demonstrating that strong performance on one aspect (summarization or stance prediction) does not necessarily translate to the other. This highlights the complexity involved in truly understanding the nuances of human argumentation.
The "Which Side Are You On?" dataset represents a significant advance in the field, enabling further progress in automated systems that can assist humans in navigating complex debates and policy discussions. While there is still room for improvement, this research lays the groundwork for more sophisticated argument analysis tools that can enhance critical thinking and decision-making on important societal issues.
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
0
Which Side Are You On? A Multi-task Dataset for End-to-End Argument Summarisation and Evaluation
Hao Li, Yuping Wu, Viktor Schlegel, Riza Batista-Navarro, Tharindu Madusanka, Iqra Zahid, Jiayan Zeng, Xiaochi Wang, Xinran He, Yizhi Li, Goran Nenadic
With the recent advances of large language models (LLMs), it is no longer infeasible to build an automated debate system that helps people to synthesise persuasive arguments. Previous work attempted this task by integrating multiple components. In our work, we introduce an argument mining dataset that captures the end-to-end process of preparing an argumentative essay for a debate, which covers the tasks of claim and evidence identification (Task 1 ED), evidence convincingness ranking (Task 2 ECR), argumentative essay summarisation and human preference ranking (Task 3 ASR) and metric learning for automated evaluation of resulting essays, based on human feedback along argument quality dimensions (Task 4 SQE). Our dataset contains 14k examples of claims that are fully annotated with the various properties supporting the aforementioned tasks. We evaluate multiple generative baselines for each of these tasks, including representative LLMs. We find, that while they show promising results on individual tasks in our benchmark, their end-to-end performance on all four tasks in succession deteriorates significantly, both in automated measures as well as in human-centred evaluation. This challenge presented by our proposed dataset motivates future research on end-to-end argument mining and summarisation. The repository of this project is available at https://github.com/HaoBytes/ArgSum-Datatset
Read more8/21/2024
0
OpenDebateEvidence: A Massive-Scale Argument Mining and Summarization Dataset
Allen Roush, Yusuf Shabazz, Arvind Balaji, Peter Zhang, Stefano Mezza, Markus Zhang, Sanjay Basu, Sriram Vishwanath, Mehdi Fatemi, Ravid Shwartz-Ziv
We introduce OpenDebateEvidence, a comprehensive dataset for argument mining and summarization sourced from the American Competitive Debate community. This dataset includes over 3.5 million documents with rich metadata, making it one of the most extensive collections of debate evidence. OpenDebateEvidence captures the complexity of arguments in high school and college debates, providing valuable resources for training and evaluation. Our extensive experiments demonstrate the efficacy of fine-tuning state-of-the-art large language models for argumentative abstractive summarization across various methods, models, and datasets. By providing this comprehensive resource, we aim to advance computational argumentation and support practical applications for debaters, educators, and researchers. OpenDebateEvidence is publicly available to support further research and innovation in computational argumentation. Access it here: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Yusuf5/OpenCaselist
Read more7/8/2024
0
A Dataset for Evaluating LLM-based Evaluation Functions for Research Question Extraction Task
Yuya Fujisaki, Shiro Takagi, Hideki Asoh, Wataru Kumagai
The progress in text summarization techniques has been remarkable. However the task of accurately extracting and summarizing necessary information from highly specialized documents such as research papers has not been sufficiently investigated. We are focusing on the task of extracting research questions (RQ) from research papers and construct a new dataset consisting of machine learning papers, RQ extracted from these papers by GPT-4, and human evaluations of the extracted RQ from multiple perspectives. Using this dataset, we systematically compared recently proposed LLM-based evaluation functions for summarizations, and found that none of the functions showed sufficiently high correlations with human evaluations. We expect our dataset provides a foundation for further research on developing better evaluation functions tailored to the RQ extraction task, and contribute to enhance the performance of the task. The dataset is available at https://github.com/auto-res/PaperRQ-HumanAnno-Dataset.
Read more9/12/2024
💬
0
Exploring the Potential of Large Language Models in Computational Argumentation
Guizhen Chen, Liying Cheng, Luu Anh Tuan, Lidong Bing
Computational argumentation has become an essential tool in various domains, including law, public policy, and artificial intelligence. It is an emerging research field in natural language processing that attracts increasing attention. Research on computational argumentation mainly involves two types of tasks: argument mining and argument generation. As large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in understanding context and generating natural language, it is worthwhile to evaluate the performance of LLMs on diverse computational argumentation tasks. This work aims to embark on an assessment of LLMs, such as ChatGPT, Flan models, and LLaMA2 models, in both zero-shot and few-shot settings. We organize existing tasks into six main categories and standardize the format of fourteen openly available datasets. In addition, we present a new benchmark dataset on counter speech generation that aims to holistically evaluate the end-to-end performance of LLMs on argument mining and argument generation. Extensive experiments show that LLMs exhibit commendable performance across most of the datasets, demonstrating their capabilities in the field of argumentation. Our analysis offers valuable suggestions for evaluating computational argumentation and its integration with LLMs in future research endeavors.
Read more7/2/2024