Recognising Agreement and Disagreement between Stances with Reason Comparing Networks
We identify agreement and disagreement between utterances that express stances towards a topic of discussion. Existing methods focus mainly on conversational settings, where dialogic features are used for (dis)agreement inference. We extend this scope and seek to detect stance (dis)agreement in a broader setting, where independent stance-bearing utterances, which prevail in many stance corpora and real-world scenarios, are compared. To cope with such non-dialogic utterances, we find that the reasons uttered to back up a specific stance can help predict stance (dis)agreements. We propose a reason comparing network (RCN) to leverage reason information for stance comparison. Empirical results on a well-known stance corpus show that our method can discover useful reason information, enabling it to outperform several baselines in stance (dis)agreement detection.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Don't Blame the Data, Blame the Model: Understanding Noise and Bias When Learning from Subjective Annotations
Researchers have raised awareness about the harms of aggregating labels especially in subjective tasks that naturally contain disagreements among human annotators. In this work we show that models that are only provided …
Consensus is Strategically Insufficient: Reasoning-Trace Disagreement as a Knowledge-Representation Signal
Multi-agent systems are commonly designed to reduce disagreement through voting, consensus protocols, debate, or fault-tolerant aggregation. We argue that this objective is insufficient for value-laden tasks, where disag…
When to Vote, When to Rewrite: Disagreement-Guided Strategy Routing for Test-Time Scaling
Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) achieve strong performance on mathematical reasoning tasks but remain unreliable on challenging instances. Existing test-time scaling methods, such as repeated sampling, self-correction, and…
Mathematical ReasoningDisagreement Space in Argument Analysis
For a highly subjective task such as recognising speaker intention and argumentation, the traditional way of generating gold standards is to aggregate a number of labels into a single one. However, this seriously neglect…
Disagreement as Data: Reasoning Trace Analytics in Multi-Agent Systems
Learning analytics researchers often analyze qualitative student data such as coded annotations or interview transcripts to understand learning processes. With the rise of generative AI, fully automated and human-AI work…