A computational argumentation framework evaluates LLM summaries of parliamentary debates by checking preservation of formal argument structures tied to contested proposals.
Keane, Eoin M
2 Pith papers cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
2
Pith papers citing it
years
2026 2verdicts
UNVERDICTED 2representative citing papers
Formalizing personalization as individual actionability in causal recourse shows hard constraints degrade validity and plausibility while revealing socio-demographic disparities in costs.
citing papers explorer
-
Evaluating LLM-Driven Summarisation of Parliamentary Debates with Computational Argumentation
A computational argumentation framework evaluates LLM summaries of parliamentary debates by checking preservation of formal argument structures tied to contested proposals.
-
From Universal to Individualized Actionability: Revisiting Personalization in Algorithmic Recourse
Formalizing personalization as individual actionability in causal recourse shows hard constraints degrade validity and plausibility while revealing socio-demographic disparities in costs.