A Large-scale Dataset for Argument Quality Ranking: Construction and Analysis
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.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Assessing and Mitigating Miscalibration in LLM-Based Social Science Measurement
LLM confidence for social science text measurements is poorly calibrated across models, and a soft-label distillation pipeline reduces expected calibration error by 43% and Brier score by 34%.
-
Assessing and Mitigating Miscalibration in LLM-Based Social Science Measurement
Audits miscalibration in LLM-based social science measurements across 14 constructs and proposes a soft label distillation pipeline that reduces ECE by 43.2% and Brier score by 34.0% on average.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.