Modeling the Quality of Dialogical Explanations

Explanations are pervasive in our lives. Mostly, they occur in dialogical form where an {\em explainer} discusses a concept or phenomenon of interest with an {\em explainee}. Leaving the explainee with a clear understanding is not straightforward due to the knowledge gap between the two participants. Previous research looked at the interaction of explanation moves, dialogue acts, and topics in successful dialogues with expert explainers. However, daily-life explanations often fail, raising the question of what makes a dialogue successful. In this work, we study explanation dialogues in terms of the interactions between the explainer and explainee and how they correlate with the quality of explanations in terms of a successful understanding on the explainee's side. In particular, we first construct a corpus of 399 dialogues from the Reddit forum {\em Explain Like I am Five} and annotate it for interaction flows and explanation quality. We then analyze the interaction flows, comparing them to those appearing in expert dialogues. Finally, we encode the interaction flows using two language models that can handle long inputs, and we provide empirical evidence for the effectiveness boost gained through the encoding in predicting the success of explanation dialogues.

Mind the Gap: Automated Corpus Creation for Enthymeme Detection and Reconstruction in Learner Arguments

Writing strong arguments can be challenging for learners. It requires to select and arrange multiple argumentative discourse units (ADUs) in a logical and coherent way as well as to decide which ADUs to leave implicit, so called enthymemes. However, when important ADUs are missing, readers might not be able to follow the reasoning or understand the argument's main point. This paper introduces two new tasks for learner arguments: to identify gaps in arguments (enthymeme detection) and to fill such gaps (enthymeme reconstruction). Approaches to both tasks may help learners improve their argument quality. We study how corpora for these tasks can be created automatically by deleting ADUs from an argumentative text that are central to the argument and its quality, while maintaining the text's naturalness. Based on the ICLEv3 corpus of argumentative learner essays, we create 40,089 argument instances for enthymeme detection and reconstruction. Through manual studies, we provide evidence that the proposed corpus creation process leads to the desired quality reduction, and results in arguments that are similarly natural to those written by learners. Finally, first baseline approaches to enthymeme detection and reconstruction demonstrate the corpus' usefulness.

AutoML in the Age of Large Language Models: Current Challenges, Future Opportunities and Risks

The fields of both Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) have achieved remarkable results over the past years. In NLP, especially Large Language Models (LLMs) have experienced a rapid series of breakthroughs very recently. We envision that the two fields can radically push the boundaries of each other through tight integration. To showcase this vision, we explore the potential of a symbiotic relationship between AutoML and LLMs, shedding light on how they can benefit each other. In particular, we investigate both the opportunities to enhance AutoML approaches with LLMs from different perspectives and the challenges of leveraging AutoML to further improve LLMs. To this end, we survey existing work, and we critically assess risks. We strongly believe that the integration of the two fields has the potential to disrupt both fields, NLP and AutoML. By highlighting conceivable synergies, but also risks, we aim to foster further exploration at the intersection of AutoML and LLMs.

To Revise or Not to Revise: Learning to Detect Improvable Claims for Argumentative Writing Support

Optimizing the phrasing of argumentative text is crucial in higher education and professional development. However, assessing whether and how the different claims in a text should be revised is a hard task, especially for novice writers. In this work, we explore the main challenges to identifying argumentative claims in need of specific revisions. By learning from collaborative editing behaviors in online debates, we seek to capture implicit revision patterns in order to develop approaches aimed at guiding writers in how to further improve their arguments. We systematically compare the ability of common word embedding models to capture the differences between different versions of the same text, and we analyze their impact on various types of writing issues. To deal with the noisy nature of revision-based corpora, we propose a new sampling strategy based on revision distance. Opposed to approaches from prior work, such sampling can be done without employing additional annotations and judgments. Moreover, we provide evidence that using contextual information and domain knowledge can further improve prediction results. How useful a certain type of context is, depends on the issue the claim is suffering from, though.

Modeling Appropriate Language in Argumentation

Online discussion moderators must make ad-hoc decisions about whether the contributions of discussion participants are appropriate or should be removed to maintain civility. Existing research on offensive language and the resulting tools cover only one aspect among many involved in such decisions. The question of what is considered appropriate in a controversial discussion has not yet been systematically addressed. In this paper, we operationalize appropriate language in argumentation for the first time. In particular, we model appropriateness through the absence of flaws, grounded in research on argument quality assessment, especially in aspects from rhetoric. From these, we derive a new taxonomy of 14 dimensions that determine inappropriate language in online discussions. Building on three argument quality corpora, we then create a corpus of 2191 arguments annotated for the 14 dimensions. Empirical analyses support that the taxonomy covers the concept of appropriateness comprehensively, showing several plausible correlations with argument quality dimensions. Moreover, results of baseline approaches to assessing appropriateness suggest that all dimensions can be modeled computationally on the corpus.

Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgment

When asked, current large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT claim that they can assist us with relevance judgments. Many researchers think this would not lead to credible IR research. In this perspective paper, we discuss possible ways for LLMs to assist human experts along with concerns and issues that arise. We devise a human-machine collaboration spectrum that allows categorizing different relevance judgment strategies, based on how much the human relies on the machine. For the extreme point of "fully automated assessment", we further include a pilot experiment on whether LLM-based relevance judgments correlate with judgments from trained human assessors. We conclude the paper by providing two opposing perspectives - for and against the use of LLMs for automatic relevance judgments - and a compromise perspective, informed by our analyses of the literature, our preliminary experimental evidence, and our experience as IR researchers. We hope to start a constructive discussion within the community to avoid a stale-mate during review, where work is dammed if is uses LLMs for evaluation and dammed if it doesn't.

The Touché23-ValueEval Dataset for Identifying Human Values behind Arguments

We present the Touch\'e23-ValueEval Dataset for Identifying Human Values behind Arguments. To investigate approaches for the automated detection of human values behind arguments, we collected 9324 arguments from 6 diverse sources, covering religious texts, political discussions, free-text arguments, newspaper editorials, and online democracy platforms. Each argument was annotated by 3 crowdworkers for 54 values. The Touch\'e23-ValueEval dataset extends the Webis-ArgValues-22. In comparison to the previous dataset, the effectiveness of a 1-Baseline decreases, but that of an out-of-the-box BERT model increases. Therefore, though the classification difficulty increased as per the label distribution, the larger dataset allows for training better models.

Conclusion-based Counter-Argument Generation

In real-world debates, the most common way to counter an argument is to reason against its main point, that is, its conclusion. Existing work on the automatic generation of natural language counter-arguments does not address the relation to the conclusion, possibly because many arguments leave their conclusion implicit. In this paper, we hypothesize that the key to effective counter-argument generation is to explicitly model the argument's conclusion and to ensure that the stance of the generated counter is opposite to that conclusion. In particular, we propose a multitask approach that jointly learns to generate both the conclusion and the counter of an input argument. The approach employs a stance-based ranking component that selects the counter from a diverse set of generated candidates whose stance best opposes the generated conclusion. In both automatic and manual evaluation, we provide evidence that our approach generates more relevant and stance-adhering counters than strong baselines.

Claim Optimization in Computational Argumentation

An optimal delivery of arguments is key to persuasion in any debate, both for humans and for AI systems. This requires the use of clear and fluent claims relevant to the given debate. Prior work has studied the automatic assessment of argument quality extensively. Yet, no approach actually improves the quality so far. Our work is the first step towards filling this gap. We propose the task of claim optimization: to rewrite argumentative claims to optimize their delivery. As an initial approach, we first generate a candidate set of optimized claims using a sequence-to-sequence model, such as BART, while taking into account contextual information. Our key idea is then to rerank generated candidates with respect to different quality metrics to find the best optimization. In automatic and human evaluation, we outperform different reranking baselines on an English corpus, improving 60% of all claims (worsening 16% only). Follow-up analyses reveal that, beyond copy editing, our approach often specifies claims with details, whereas it adds less evidence than humans do. Moreover, its capabilities generalize well to other domains, such as instructional texts.

No Word Embedding Model Is Perfect: Evaluating the Representation Accuracy for Social Bias in the Media

News articles both shape and reflect public opinion across the political spectrum. Analyzing them for social bias can thus provide valuable insights, such as prevailing stereotypes in society and the media, which are often adopted by NLP models trained on respective data. Recent work has relied on word embedding bias measures, such as WEAT. However, several representation issues of embeddings can harm the measures' accuracy, including low-resource settings and token frequency differences. In this work, we study what kind of embedding algorithm serves best to accurately measure types of social bias known to exist in US online news articles. To cover the whole spectrum of political bias in the US, we collect 500k articles and review psychology literature with respect to expected social bias. We then quantify social bias using WEAT along with embedding algorithms that account for the aforementioned issues. We compare how models trained with the algorithms on news articles represent the expected social bias. Our results suggest that the standard way to quantify bias does not align well with knowledge from psychology. While the proposed algorithms reduce the~gap, they still do not fully match the literature.