Assessing the Sufficiency of Arguments through Conclusion Generation
The premises of an argument give evidence or other reasons to support a conclusion. However, the amount of support required depends on the generality of a conclusion, the nature of the individual premises, and similar. An argument whose premises make its conclusion rationally worthy to be drawn is called sufficient in argument quality research. Previous work tackled sufficiency assessment as a standard text classification problem, not modeling the inherent relation of premises and conclusion. In this paper, we hypothesize that the conclusion of a sufficient argument can be generated from its premises. To study this hypothesis, we explore the potential of assessing sufficiency based on the output of large-scale pre-trained language models. Our best model variant achieves an F1-score of .885, outperforming the previous state-of-the-art and being on par with human experts. While manual evaluation reveals the quality of the generated conclusions, their impact remains low ultimately.
Code (1)
Tasks
text-classificationText ClassificationSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
CASA: Causality-driven Argument Sufficiency Assessment
The argument sufficiency assessment task aims to determine if the premises of a given argument support its conclusion. To tackle this task, existing works often train a classifier on data annotated by humans. However, an…
Logical Fallacy DetectionRecognizing Insufficiently Supported Arguments in Argumentative Essays
In this paper, we propose a new task for assessing the quality of natural language arguments. The premises of a well-reasoned argument should provide enough evidence for accepting or rejecting its claim. Although this cr…
Information RetrievalExplainable Unsupervised Argument Similarity Rating with Abstract Meaning Representation and Conclusion Generation
When assessing the similarity of arguments, researchers typically use approaches that do not provide interpretable evidence or justifications for their ratings. Hence, the features that determine argument similarity rema…
Abstract Meaning RepresentationNecessary and Sufficient Explanations in Abstract Argumentation
In this paper, we discuss necessary and sufficient explanations for formal argumentation - the question whether and why a certain argument can be accepted (or not) under various extension-based semantics. Given a framewo…
Abstract ArgumentationTowards Assessing Argumentation Annotation - A First Step
This paper presents a first attempt at using Walton{'}s argumentation schemes for annotating arguments in Swedish political text and assessing the feasibility of using this particular set of schemes with two linguistical…