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.

Key Point Analysis via Contrastive Learning and Extractive Argument Summarization

Key point analysis is the task of extracting a set of concise and high-level statements from a given collection of arguments, representing the gist of these arguments. This paper presents our proposed approach to the Key Point Analysis shared task, collocated with the 8th Workshop on Argument Mining. The approach integrates two complementary components. One component employs contrastive learning via a siamese neural network for matching arguments to key points; the other is a graph-based extractive summarization model for generating key points. In both automatic and manual evaluation, our approach was ranked best among all submissions to the shared task.

Argument from Old Man's View: Assessing Social Bias in Argumentation

Social bias in language - towards genders, ethnicities, ages, and other social groups - poses a problem with ethical impact for many NLP applications. Recent research has shown that machine learning models trained on respective data may not only adopt, but even amplify the bias. So far, however, little attention has been paid to bias in computational argumentation. In this paper, we study the existence of social biases in large English debate portals. In particular, we train word embedding models on portal-specific corpora and systematically evaluate their bias using WEAT, an existing metric to measure bias in word embeddings. In a word co-occurrence analysis, we then investigate causes of bias. The results suggest that all tested debate corpora contain unbalanced and biased data, mostly in favor of male people with European-American names. Our empirical insights contribute towards an understanding of bias in argumentative data sources.

Is It Worth the Attention? A Comparative Evaluation of Attention Layers for Argument Unit Segmentation

Attention mechanisms have seen some success for natural language processing downstream tasks in recent years and generated new State-of-the-Art results. A thorough evaluation of the attention mechanism for the task of Argumentation Mining is missing, though. With this paper, we report a comparative evaluation of attention layers in combination with a bidirectional long short-term memory network, which is the current state-of-the-art approach to the unit segmentation task. We also compare sentence-level contextualized word embeddings to pre-generated ones. Our findings suggest that for this task the additional attention layer does not improve upon a less complex approach. In most cases, the contextualized embeddings do also not show an improvement on the baseline score.