Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 52 references

From Argumentation to Deliberation: Perspectivized Stance Vectors for Fine-grained (Dis)agreement Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that encoding arguments as vectors of stances toward issue-specific concepts can expose the shared and opposing grounds between arguers, moving computational argumentation from debate to deliberation.

desk verdict The PSV framework is a genuine formal step beyond binary stance, but the fine-grained evaluation rests on annotations with Krippendorff's α=0.03, so the central claim is not empirically supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09644 v1 pith:G7QX74HV submitted 2025-02-10 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CY

Moritz Plenz , Philipp Heinisch , Janosch Gehring , Philipp Cimiano , Anette Frank This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CY
keywords computationalargumentationperspectivizedstancevectorsdeliberationfine-graineddisagreementclassificationConceptNetacceptabilityscoresargumentmining
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Debates present a conflict as a binary choice: for or against. This paper asks what happens if an argument is instead represented as a vector of stances toward the specific concepts that the debate turns on — for example, 'hunting for food' versus 'trophy hunting'. The authors' claim is that this finer representation, called a Perspectivized Stance Vector, reveals exactly which perspectives two arguers share, which they oppose, and which are simply irrelevant to one of them, and that this information can identify actionable points for resolving a conflict. That is the step that could move computational argumentation from winning debates to supporting deliberation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Perspectivized Stance Vector (PSV), an n-dimensional vector in which each dimension is one concept from a topic-specific signature and each entry is a stance value from the set {against, neutral, in favor}. The signature is induced without supervision: arguments in a debate corpus are aligned to ConceptNet concept graphs, and the top-k concepts by differential frequency across PRO and CON arguments are selected. Stance values are then predicted per concept (best by zero-shot GPT4o prompting), and pairs of vectors are aggregated by functions such as P0, which computes agreement, orthogonality, and disagreement contributions per concept before averaging to a global acceptability score.

What would settle it

On a fresh debate topic not used in the paper, induce a PSV signature with the paper's top-k method, then have annotators list the concepts on which opposing arguments actually agree or disagree. If most of the annotator-identified conflict concepts fall outside the signature or are rated neutral by the stance predictor, the signature has missed the decisive perspectives and the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that arguments on a contested issue can be usefully represented as Perspectivized Stance Vectors (PSVs): a fixed, topic-specific list of concepts — the signature — together with a predicted stance label (against, neutral, in favor) for each concept. Comparing two PSVs dimension by dimension yields agreement, orthogonality, and disagreement scores per perspective, so an argument pair is no longer reduced to a single 'agree or clash' verdict. The authors show that this representation uncovers partial agreement between arguments that take opposite global stances, uncovers disagreement among arguments that share a global stance, and — aggregated across stakeholder groups — surfaces shared ground such as hunters and environmentalists both condemning poaching. Their evaluations report best performances of 50.2% macro F1 for stance prediction with GPT4o and 0.62-0.76 ROC-AUC for perspectivized acceptability with the P0 aggregation, which they argue is enough to point toward concrete compromise proposals.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the set of top-k concepts selected by differential frequency across PRO and CON arguments is a complete and appropriately granular set of perspectives for a debate topic, so that a fixed 100-dimensional PSV captures the dimensions of (dis)agreement that matter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • PSV-based analysis can detect partial agreement between argument pairs of opposite global stance, turning a binary opposition into a list of specific contested and shared perspectives.
  • The same framework reveals disagreement within a global stance, showing that arguers who are both PRO or both CON may hold that position for different reasons.
  • Because signatures are induced unsupervised from ConceptNet, the approach transfers to new debate topics without training a topic-specific classifier.
  • The interpretable per-concept scores beat direct pairwise LLM prompting on perspectivized acceptability (0.62-0.76 vs 0.62-0.69 AUC) while scaling linearly in the number of arguments rather than quadratically.
  • Aggregating PSVs by stakeholder group yields maps of shared and conflicting perspectives that can guide moderators toward compromise entry points.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the signature were extended beyond ConceptNet with, say, LLM-generated concepts, the method might capture perspectives outside the static knowledge graph, improving on the paper's observed 53.3% appropriate-granularity ceiling for unfiltered concepts.
  • The neutral (orthogonal) dimension is the natural negotiation space: perspectives where one arguer has no stance may be the least costly concessions, an implication the paper identifies but does not pursue.
  • A learned weighting over the fixed signature could replace the paper's uniform averaging and plausibly raise global acceptability prediction, at the cost of the training data the authors note are currently unavailable.
  • Because the case study shows that same-stance arguers disagree on perspectives such as 'control' or 'pleasure,' stakeholder maps built from PSVs could serve as a diagnostic for split coalitions within advocacy groups, not just across them.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper introduces Perspectivized Stance Vectors (PSVs) as a representation of arguments on a debate topic, built by selecting issue-specific concept sets from ConceptNet, predicting stances (for/against/neutral) toward those concepts with LLM-based classifiers, and aggregating the resulting vectors into acceptability scores. The authors evaluate signature quality, stance prediction, and global and perspectivized acceptability on a small manually annotated subset of PAKT, and illustrate the framework with stakeholder-level case studies. The main thesis is that PSVs can reveal fine-grained shared and opposing perspectives that support deliberation and conflict resolution.

Significance. If the representation and its evaluations are reliable, the paper offers a genuinely interpretable, unsupervised alternative to binary stance classification, with a clear formalization of stance vectors and aggregation operators, and several automatic sanity checks (same-stance separation, agreement/disagreement correlation, and a large-scale unannotated evaluation). The authors provide code and data, and the case studies demonstrate a useful proof-of-concept for stakeholder-level analysis. The main risk is that the fine-grained evaluation—the evidence for the paper's central claim—is anchored in annotations with near-chance inter-annotator agreement and in test-set selection of aggregation functions, so the quantitative support for the central claim is currently weak.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3.2, Table 5, Appendix B.1] The central fine-grained claim—that PSVs identify which perspectives two arguments agree or disagree on—is supported only by the concept-level argument-pair acceptability evaluation, yet the gold labels for this task have Krippendorff's α = 0.03 (Table 5), which is effectively chance agreement. Moreover, only one of the five topics (Animal Hunting) was labeled by all three annotators; the remaining four topics were each labeled by a single annotator, so the 1,250 concept-level labels in the table are mostly unverified. Under these conditions, the P0 AUC values of 0.62/0.75/0.76 reported in the middle block of Table 4 cannot be read as evidence that the method tracks shared perspective structure. The paper acknowledges the low α in §B.1 but proceeds to interpret the case study as common-ground/conflict identification; this needs to be addressed by, e.g., re-annotating with adjudication, reporting per-annotator results, or explicitly demoting these numbers to exploratory.
  2. [§4.3, Table 4] All aggregation methods (S, S0, SD, P, P0, PD) are evaluated on the same manually annotated test sets, and the best-performing method (P0) is then presented as the paper's method without any held-out validation. Because the method family is large and the annotation set is small (125 argument pairs for global and 1,250 for perspectivized acceptability), the reported AUCs (e.g., 0.62/0.75/0.76) are likely optimistically biased by test-set selection. The authors should either pre-register the aggregation choice, use nested cross-validation, or report selection-corrected performance.
  3. [§3.1.1, Table 2] The signature analysis shows that unfiltered ConceptNet-based signatures have only 53.3% precision for 'appropriate granularity' (Table 2). Since a large fraction of PSV dimensions may be too general or too specific, the 'actionable points' identified in the case study (e.g., Section 5) may reflect artifacts of the signature-induction process rather than true perspective structure. The paper reports filtering variants but does not analyze how granularity failures affect the acceptability scores or the case-study conclusions. At a minimum, the authors should report the acceptability results for the appropriate-granularity subset and for the filtered signatures, and discuss the sensitivity of the qualitative findings to the signature choice.
  4. [§3.1.2, Table 3, Figure 6] The stance-prediction module that feeds the PSVs has macro F1 of only 50.2% (GPT4o zero-shot, Table 3), and the confusion matrix (Figure 6) shows that neutral stances are frequently misclassified as negative. Because stance values are the core input to all aggregation functions, these errors propagate directly into the acceptability scores; the paper does not report how much of the disagreement/agreement signal is due to stance-classification error as opposed to aggregation quality. An error propagation or sensitivity analysis (e.g., comparing predicted stances against oracle stances) would make the pipeline's strengths and limitations much clearer.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A.5] The pairwise GPT4o prompt contains 'Argument 2: {argument_1}', which appears to be a copy-paste error; it should read 'Argument 2: {argument_2}'.
  2. [Table 5] The note that Krippendorff's α is computed only on one topic should be made more prominent in the main text, since the reported α values are per-topic rather than pooled across all 5 topics; this affects how readers interpret the quality of the full annotation set.
  3. [§4.3.1] The grouping of 'agreement' and 'partial agreement' into one class is reasonable, but the paper should report the class frequencies before and after grouping; with only two original 'agreement' pairs, the stability of the resulting AUC values is questionable.
  4. [Data availability] The paper states 'Data and code are available at [GitHub]' but also says the annotated data 'will be published upon acceptance'; please clarify which items are currently released and include the annotation guidelines and labels in the public repository.
  5. [Figures 2 and 9] The histograms in Figures 2 and 9 do not have explicit legends; please label which color corresponds to same-stance and which to different-stance pairs, and specify the axis units.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: stance prediction uses an external LLM and aggregation is unsupervised; the only mild self-reference is signature induction from the same PAKT corpus, which affects sanity checks but not the central human-evaluated acceptability results.

full rationale

The paper's central construction is not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs. PSV stance values are predicted by GPT4o (zero-shot) in Section 3.1.2, an external model not trained on the target annotations, and the aggregation functions in Table 1 are hand-defined, unsupervised operations on those predicted stances; no parameter is fitted to the gold acceptability labels. The signature concepts are selected by differential frequency over PRO/CON arguments in Equation 2, which is a self-referential element because the same PAKT corpus supplies both the concept set and the same-stance sanity-check labels in Section 4.3.3; this can inflate that sanity check, but it is explicitly an auxiliary consolidation rather than the paper's central claim. The fine-grained acceptability evaluation in Section 4.3.2 uses freshly collected human concept-level labels, not the stance labels used in selection, so it is not forced by construction. The reliance on the authors' PAKT corpus and Plenz et al. concept-extraction work is normal use of prior resources, not a load-bearing self-citation chain: no uniqueness theorem or unverified result is imported to exclude alternatives. The paper's own Limitations section concedes possible oversimplification, and Table 5 reports Krippendorff's alpha = 0.03 for concept-level pair annotations; these are reliability and correctness concerns, not circularity. No step of the argument equates a prediction with a fitted input or defines the target in terms of the method.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or formal entities. The main free parameters are the choice of signature size k, the filtering options, and the selection of the best aggregation method on the test set. The axioms are domain assumptions about the adequacy of ConceptNet concepts as perspectives, the reliability of LLM stance classification, and the validity of simple averaging for global acceptability.

free parameters (3)
  • k (number of top PRO and CON concepts per topic) = 50 (100-dimensional PSVs)
    Chosen by hand; Section 4.3 states '100 dimensional PSVs w/o filtering'. The number of signature concepts directly defines the PSV dimension and was not optimized.
  • Filtering options (hypernym removal, ChatGPT relevance filtering) = applied or not, no criteria
    These are binary choices that change the PSV dimension and performance (Table 2); no principled selection criterion is given.
  • Aggregation method selection = P0 chosen as best
    The choice of P0 over the other methods (S, S0, SD, P, PD) is based on highest AUC on the same annotated evaluation set.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption ConceptNet concepts are a suitable and sufficient proxy for the perspectives an arguer holds on a debate topic.
    Invoked in Section 3.1.1; the paper equates 'perspective' with 'concept' and relies on ConceptNet nodes, following Plenz et al. (2024).
  • domain assumption The stance of an argument toward a given concept is reliably inferable from the argument text by an LLM (GPT4o).
    Section 3.1.2; the stance prediction is delegated to GPT4o with zero/few-shot prompting, and no human evaluation of the LLM's own reliability is provided beyond the annotated F1.
  • domain assumption Simple averaging of per-concept stance agreements yields a meaningful global acceptability score.
    Section 3.2; the paper restricts to unsupervised aggregation and does not learn weights for perspectives.
  • domain assumption Binary PRO/CON stance labels for the debate topic (from PAKT) are correct and sufficient to split arguments for signature concept selection.
    Section 3.1.1; the concept selection uses topic-level stance splits from PAKT.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Argumentation to Deliberation: Perspectivized Stance Vectors for Fine-grained (Dis)agreement Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G7QX74HV

@misc{pith2026250209644,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Argumentation to Deliberation: Perspectivized Stance Vectors for Fine-grained (Dis)agreement Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G7QX74HV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09644}
}
read the original abstract

Debating over conflicting issues is a necessary first step towards resolving conflicts. However, intrinsic perspectives of an arguer are difficult to overcome by persuasive argumentation skills. Proceeding from a debate to a deliberative process, where we can identify actionable options for resolving a conflict requires a deeper analysis of arguments and the perspectives they are grounded in - as it is only from there that one can derive mutually agreeable resolution steps. In this work we develop a framework for a deliberative analysis of arguments in a computational argumentation setup. We conduct a fine-grained analysis of perspectivized stances expressed in the arguments of different arguers or stakeholders on a given issue, aiming not only to identify their opposing views, but also shared perspectives arising from their attitudes, values or needs. We formalize this analysis in Perspectivized Stance Vectors that characterize the individual perspectivized stances of all arguers on a given issue. We construct these vectors by determining issue- and argument-specific concepts, and predict an arguer's stance relative to each of them. The vectors allow us to measure a modulated (dis)agreement between arguers, structured by perspectives, which allows us to identify actionable points for conflict resolution, as a first step towards deliberation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09644 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example PSVs for ‘Animal Hunting’. (Habernal and Gurevych, 2016; Wang et al., 2017; Wachsmuth et al., 2018), so far there has been lim￾ited interest in identifying points in opposing posi￾tions that bear a chance for consensual resolution of the conflict. Identifying points that offer a chance for resolution requires fine-grained analysis of the stances expressed by different stakeholders, to un￾derstand on which sp… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Disagreement (P0) distribution of argument pairs from the same stance or different stance. rectly compare the arguments, without the interme￾diate representation of PSVs. Note, however, that such an approach greatly diminishes interpretabil￾ity, given the lack of a structured representation and scalability, as the number of comparisons scales quadratically with the number of arguments, as op￾posed to the linear scal… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Agreement scores among stakeholder groups for ‘ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Dis)agreement of selected perspectives. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the confusion matrix for GPT4o (zero shot) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: ROC curves for Orthogonality with P0 for different PSV lengths. B.3 Impact of PSV length on Acceptability scores [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: ROC-AUC scores compared to human annotation depending on PSV length. Filtering options are shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Argument pairs depending on their (Dis)agreement scores, colored by same stance. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Acceptability scores among stakeholder groups for different topics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Argument pairs depending on their (Dis)agreement scores, colored by whether the stakeholders of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Most prominent perspectives for Animal Hunting, depending on the stances of the compared arguments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Yamen Ajjour, Milad Alshomary, Henning Wachsmuth, and Benno Stein. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1290 Modeling frames in argumentation . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2922--2932, Hong Kong, Chi...

    doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1290 2019

  4. [4]

    Khalid Al-Khatib, Henning Wachsmuth, Kevin Lang, Jakob Herpel, Matthias Hagen, and Benno Stein. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P18-1237 Modeling deliberative argumentation strategies on W ikipedia . In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2545--2555, Melbourne, Australia....

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1237 2018

  5. [5]

    Milad Alshomary, Roxanne El Baff, Timon Gurcke, and Henning Wachsmuth. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.601 The moral debater: A study on the computational generation of morally framed arguments . In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8782--8797, Dublin, Ire...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.601 2022

  6. [6]

    Leila Amgoud and Srdjan Vesic. 2014. Rich preference-based argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Approxoximate Reasoning, 55(2)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Michiel Bakker, Martin Chadwick, Hannah Sheahan, Michael Tessler, Lucy Campbell-Gillingham, Jan Balaguer, Nat McAleese, Amelia Glaese, John Aslanides, Matt Botvinick, and Christopher Summerfield. 2022. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/file/f978c8f3b5f399cae464e85f72e28503-Paper-Conference.pdf Fine-tuning language models to find agreem...

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Ziyi Bao, Kristijonas C yras, and Francesca Toni. 2017. Abaplus: Attack reversal in abstract and structured argumentation with preferences. In PRIMA 2017: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems, pages 420--437, Cham. Springer International Publishing

    work page 2017

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Roy Bar-Haim, Indrajit Bhattacharya, Francesco Dinuzzo, Amrita Saha, and Noam Slonim. 2017. https://aclanthology.org/E17-1024 Stance classification of context-dependent claims . In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the E uropean Chapter of the Association for Computational...

    2017

  2. [10]

    Joe Barrow, Rajiv Jain, Nedim Lipka, Franck Dernoncourt, Vlad Morariu, Varun Manjunatha, Douglas Oard, Philip Resnik, and Henning Wachsmuth. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.126 Syntopical graphs for computational argumentation tasks . In Proceedings of the 59th...

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Ralph Bergmann, Ralf Schenkel, Lorik Dumani, and Stefan Ollinger. 2018. ReCAP - Information Retrieval and Case-based Reasoning for Robust Deliberation and Synthesis of Arguments in the Political Discourse . In Proceedings of LWDA

    2018

  4. [12]

    Gianni Brauwers and Flavius Frasincar. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1145/3503044 A survey on aspect-based sentiment classification . ACM Comput. Surv., 55(4)

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Laura Cabello and Uchenna Akujuobi. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.acl-long.245 It is simple sometimes: A study on improving aspect-based sentiment analysis performance . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1:...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Neele Falk, Andreas Waldis, and Iryna Gurevych. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.argmining-1.14 Overview of P erpective A rg2024 the first shared task on perspective argument retrieval . In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Argument Mining (ArgMining 2024), pages 130--149...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Mark Felton, Amanda Crowell, Merce Garcia-Mila, and Constanza Villarroel. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100350 Capturing deliberative argument: An analytic coding scheme for studying argumentative dialogue and its benefits for learning . Learning, Culture and Socia...

    2022

  8. [16]

    Xiyan Fu and Anette Frank. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.492 The Mystery of Compositional Generalization in Graph-based Generative Commonsense Reasoning . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, pages 8376--8394, Miami,...

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Ivan Habernal and Iryna Gurevych. 2016. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D16-1129 What makes a convincing argument? empirical analysis and detecting attributes of convincingness in web argumentation . In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pr...

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Philipp Heinisch, Anette Frank, Juri Opitz, and Philipp Cimiano. 2022. https://philippheinisch.de/info/NLGconclusionFraming.pdf Strategies for Framing Argumentative Conclusion Generation . In Proceedings of the 15th International Natural Language Generation Conference. Associa...

    2022

  11. [19]

    Philipp Heinisch, Dimitry Mindlin, and Philipp Cimiano. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.argmining-1.11 Unsupervised argument reframing with a counterfactual-based approach . In Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Argument Mining, pages 107--119, Singapore. Association f...

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Mickel Hoang, Oskar Alija Bihorac, and Jacobo Rouces. 2019. https://aclanthology.org/W19-6120 Aspect-based sentiment analysis using BERT . In Proceedings of the 22nd Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 187--196, Turku, Finland. Link \"o ping University Electr...

    2019

  13. [21]

    Yufang Hou and Charles Jochim. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-5107 Argument relation classification using a joint inference model . In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Argument Mining, pages 60--66, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    Johannes Kiesel, Milad Alshomary, Nicolas Handke, Xiaoni Cai, Henning Wachsmuth, and Benno Stein. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.306 Identifying the human values behind arguments . In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational ...

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Jonathan Kobbe, Ioana Hulpu s , and Heiner Stuckenschmidt. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.4 Unsupervised stance detection for arguments from consequences . In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pag...

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Erik K \"o rner, Gregor Wiedemann, Ahmad Dawar Hakimi, Gerhard Heyer, and Martin Potthast. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.795 On classifying whether two texts are on the same side of an argument . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in...

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    Klaus Krippendorff. 2019. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. SAGE

    2019

  18. [26]

    Daniel Loureiro, Francesco Barbieri, Leonardo Neves, Luis Espinosa Anke, and Jose Camacho-collados. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-demo.25 T ime LM s: Diachronic language models from T witter . In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Comput...

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    Yiwei Luo, Dallas Card, and Dan Jurafsky. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.296 Detecting stance in media on global warming . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 3296--3315, Online. Association for Computational L...

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    Nailia Mirzakhmedova, Johannes Kiesel, Milad Alshomary, Maximilian Heinrich, Nicolas Handke, Xiaoni Cai, Valentin Barriere, Doratossadat Dastgheib, Omid Ghahroodi, MohammadAli SadraeiJavaheri, Ehsaneddin Asgari, Lea Kawaletz, Henning Wachsmuth, and Benno Stein. 2024. https://a...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Sanjay Modgil and Michael Luck. 2009. Argumentation based resolution of conflicts between desires and normative goals. In Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, pages 19--36, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    2009

  22. [30]

    Mohammad, Parinaz Sobhani, and Svetlana Kiritchenko

    Saif M. Mohammad, Parinaz Sobhani, and Svetlana Kiritchenko. 2017. Stance and sentiment in tweets. Special Section of the ACM Transactions on Internet Technology on Argumentation in Social Media, 17(3)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Juri Opitz, Philipp Heinisch, Philipp Wiesenbach, Philipp Cimiano, and Anette Frank. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.argmining-1.3 Explainable unsupervised argument similarity rating with A bstract M eaning R epresentation and conclusion generation . In Proceedings of t...

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Yulia Otmakhova, Shima Khanehzar, and Lea Frermann. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.822 Media framing: A typology and survey of computational approaches across disciplines . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguist...

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    Debjit Paul, Juri Opitz, Maria Becker, Jonathan Kobbe, Graeme Hirst, and Anette Frank. 2020. http://ebooks.iospress.nl/publication/55381 Argumentative Relation Classification with Background Knowledge. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Models ...

    2020

  26. [34]

    Moritz Plenz, Raphael Buchmüller, and Alexander Bondarenko. 2023 a . https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3497/paper-264.pdf Argument Quality Prediction for Ranking Documents . In Working Notes Papers of the CLEF 2023 Evaluation Labs, volume 3497 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Thessaloniki, Greece

    2023

  27. [35]

    Moritz Plenz and Anette Frank. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.245 Graph language models . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4477--4494, Bangkok, Thailand. Association for C...

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    Moritz Plenz, Philipp Heinisch, Anette Frank, and Philipp Cimiano. 2024. PAKT: Perspectivized Argumentation Knowledge Graph and Tool for Deliberation Analysis . In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Recent Advances in Robust Argumentation Machines (RATIO-24). Springer

    2024

  29. [37]

    Moritz Plenz, Juri Opitz, Philipp Heinisch, Philipp Cimiano, and Anette Frank. 2023 b . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.338 Similarity-weighted construction of contextualized commonsense knowledge graphs for knowledge-intense argumentation tasks . In Proceedings of t...

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    Victor Hugo Nascimento Rocha, Igor Cataneo Silveira, Paulo Pirozelli, Denis Deratani Mauá, and Fabio Gagliardi Cozman. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49008-8_34 Assessing Good, Bad and Ugly Arguments Generated by ChatGPT: a New Dataset, its Methodology and Associated ...

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    Mattes Ruckdeschel and Gregor Wiedemann. 2022. https://aclanthology.org/2022.argmining-1.12 Boundary detection and categorization of argument aspects via supervised learning . In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Argument Mining, pages 126--136, Online and in Gyeongju, Republ...

    2022

  32. [40]

    Pan, and Nadin Kokciyan

    Ameer Saadat-Yazdi, Jeff Z. Pan, and Nadin Kokciyan. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-main.182 Uncovering implicit inferences for improved relational argument mining . In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational...

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    Swarnadeep Saha, Prateek Yadav, Lisa Bauer, and Mohit Bansal. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.609 E xpla G raphs: An explanation graph generation task for structured commonsense reasoning . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural...

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    Mark Snaith, John Lawrence, and Chris Reed. 2010. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/4187811/pdf_proceedings_od2010-2-libre.pdf?1394354672=&response-content-disposition=inline In Proceedings of Online Deliberation (OD 2010)

    2010

  35. [43]

    Mohammad, and Svetlana Kiritchenko

    Parinaz Sobhani, Saif M. Mohammad, and Svetlana Kiritchenko. 2016. Detecting stance in tweets and analyzing its interaction with sentiment. In Proceedings of the Fifth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*Sem), Berlin, Germany

    2016

  36. [44]

    Robyn Speer, Joshua Chin, and Catherine Havasi. 2017. http://aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI17/paper/view/14972 Conceptnet 5.5: An open multilingual graph of general knowledge . In Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty-Fifth Con...

    2017

  37. [45]

    Henning Wachsmuth, Shahbaz Syed, and Benno Stein. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P18-1023 Retrieval of the best counterargument without prior topic knowledge . In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)...

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    Douglas Walton, Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon, Adam Wyner, and Dan Cartwright. 2010. Argumentation in the framework of deliberation dialogue. In Arguing Global Governance. Imprint Routledge

    2010

  39. [47]

    Douglas Walton, Alice Toniolo, and Timothy J. Norman. 2016. Towards a richer model of deliberation dialogue: Closure problem and change of circumstances. Argument & Computation, 7(2-3):155--173

    2016

  40. [48]

    Haining Wang, Kang He, Bobo Li, Lei Chen, Fei Li, Xu Han, Chong Teng, and Donghong Ji. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.615 Refining and synthesis: A simple yet effective data augmentation framework for cross-domain aspect-based sentiment analysis . In Findi...

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    Lu Wang, Nick Beauchamp, Sarah Shugars, and Kechen Qin. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00057 Winning on the merits: The joint effects of content and style on debate outcomes . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5:219--232

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    Bowen Zhang, Daijun Ding, Liwen Jing, Genan Dai, and Nan Yin. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.14548 How would stance detection techniques evolve after the launch of chatgpt? Preprint, arXiv:2212.14548

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Xiaotian Zhang, Yanjun Zheng, Hang Yan, and Xipeng Qiu. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.1 Investigating glyph-phonetic information for C hinese spell checking: What works and what ' s next? In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2...

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    Chenye Zhao, Yingjie Li, Cornelia Caragea, and Yue Zhang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.794 Z ero S tance: Leveraging C hat GPT for open-domain stance detection via dataset generation . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.