Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

A Large-scale Dataset for Argument Quality Ranking: Construction and Analysis

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1911.11408 v1 pith:KTOH2XPI submitted 2019-11-26 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords qualitydatasetargumentrankingannotatedargumentspoint-wisereleased
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Identifying the quality of free-text arguments has become an important task in the rapidly expanding field of computational argumentation. In this work, we explore the challenging task of argument quality ranking. To this end, we created a corpus of 30,497 arguments carefully annotated for point-wise quality, released as part of this work. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest dataset annotated for point-wise argument quality, larger by a factor of five than previously released datasets. Moreover, we address the core issue of inducing a labeled score from crowd annotations by performing a comprehensive evaluation of different approaches to this problem. In addition, we analyze the quality dimensions that characterize this dataset. Finally, we present a neural method for argument quality ranking, which outperforms several baselines on our own dataset, as well as previous methods published for another dataset.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Deliberative Deficit: An Empirical Critique of LLMs in Democratic Discourse

    cs.MA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across 1,980 five-agent LLM runs on citizen-assembly topics, LLM groups match human procedural talk but show one-third the perspective diversity, weak topic-dependent consistency gains, and reversed convergence dynamics.

  2. Automated Essay Scoring Incorporating Annotations from Automated Feedback Systems

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    On the PERSUADE corpus, adding generated argument-component tags to essay text raised automated scoring agreement from a QWK of 0.860 to 0.868, while error-only tags lowered it.

Pith tools