Argument mining involves multiple sub-tasks that automatically identify argumentative elements, such as claim detection, evidence extraction, stance classification, etc. However, each subtask alone is insufficient for a thorough understanding of the argumentative structure and reasoning process. To learn a complete view of an argument essay and capture the interdependence among argumentative components, we need to know what opinions people hold (i.e., claims), why those opinions are valid (i.e., supporting evidence), which source the evidence comes from (i.e., evidence type), and how those claims react to the debating topic (i.e., stance). In this work, we for the first time propose a challenging argument quadruplet extraction task (AQE), which can provide an all-in-one extraction of four argumentative components, i.e., claims, evidence, evidence types, and stances. To support this task, we construct a large-scale and challenging dataset. However, there is no existing method that can solve the argument quadruplet extraction. To fill this gap, we propose a novel quad-tagging augmented generative approach, which leverages a quadruplet tagging module to augment the training of the generative framework. The experimental results on our dataset demonstrate the empirical superiority of our proposed approach over several strong baselines.

With the recent undeniable advancement in reasoning abilities in large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and GPT-4, there is a growing trend for using LLMs on various tasks. One area where LLMs can be employed is as an alternative evaluation metric for complex generative tasks, which generally demands expensive human judges to complement the traditional automatic metrics for various evaluation dimensions such as fluency and consistency. In this work, we conduct extensive analysis to investigate the stability and reliability of LLMs as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We found that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements due to significant limitations. That is, LLM evaluators rate each candidate system inconsistently and are dimension-dependent. They also struggle to compare candidates with close performance and become more unreliable with higher-quality summaries by obtaining a lower correlation with humans. In other words, with better abstractive summarization systems being introduced at a fast pace, LLMs may result in misleading and unreliable evaluations.

Pre-trained language models (PLMs) have achieved outstanding achievements in abstractive single-document summarization (SDS). However, such benefits may not fully extend to multi-document summarization (MDS), where the handling of cross-document information is more complex. Previous works either design new MDS architectures or apply PLMs bluntly with concatenated source documents as a reformulated SDS task. While the former does not utilize previous pre-training efforts and may not generalize well across different domains, the latter may not sufficiently attend to the intricate cross-document relationships unique to MDS tasks. Instead, we enforce hierarchy on both the encoder and decoder to better utilize a PLM to facilitate multi-document interactions for the MDS task. Across 10 MDS benchmarks from various domains, our method outperforms or is competitive with the previous best models, including those with additional MDS pre-training or with more parameters. It outperforms its corresponding PLM backbone by up to 3 Rouge-L and is favored by humans.

As large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated their powerful capabilities in plenty of domains and tasks, including context understanding, code generation, language generation, data storytelling, etc., many data analysts may raise concerns if their jobs will be replaced by artificial intelligence (AI). This controversial topic has drawn great attention in public. However, we are still at a stage of divergent opinions without any definitive conclusion. Motivated by this, we raise the research question of “is GPT-4 a good data analyst?” in this work and aim to answer it by conducting head-to-head comparative studies. In detail, we regard GPT-4 as a data analyst to perform end-to-end data analysis with databases from a wide range of domains. We propose a framework to tackle the problems by carefully designing the prompts for GPT-4 to conduct experiments. We also design several task-specific evaluation metrics to systematically compare the performance between several professional human data analysts and GPT-4. Experimental results show that GPT-4 can achieve comparable performance to humans. We also provide in-depth discussions about our results to shed light on further studies before reaching the conclusion that GPT-4 can replace data analysts.

A wide range of control perspectives have been explored in controllable text generation. Structure-controlled summarization is recently proposed as a useful and interesting research direction. However, current structure-controlling methods have limited effectiveness in enforcing the desired structure. To address this limitation, we propose a sentence-level beam search generation method (SentBS), where evaluation is conducted throughout the generation process to select suitable sentences for subsequent generations. We experiment with different combinations of decoding methods to be used as sub-components by SentBS and evaluate results on the structure-controlled dataset MReD. Experiments show that all explored combinations for SentBS can improve the agreement between the generated text and the desired structure, with the best method significantly reducing the structural discrepancies suffered by the existing model, by approximately 68%.

Traditionally, a debate usually requires a manual preparation process, including reading plenty of articles, selecting the claims, identifying the stances of the claims, seeking the evidence for the claims, etc. As the AI debate attracts more attention these years, it is worth exploring the methods to automate the tedious process involved in the debating system. In this work, we introduce a comprehensive and large dataset named IAM, which can be applied to a series of argument mining tasks, including claim extraction, stance classification, evidence extraction, etc. Our dataset is collected from over 1k articles related to 123 topics. Near 70k sentences in the dataset are fully annotated based on their argument properties (e.g., claims, stances, evidence, etc.). We further propose two new integrated argument mining tasks associated with the debate preparation process: (1) claim extraction with stance classification (CESC) and (2) claim-evidence pair extraction (CEPE). We adopt a pipeline approach and an end-to-end method for each integrated task separately. Promising experimental results are reported to show the values and challenges of our proposed tasks, and motivate future research on argument mining.

When directly using existing text generation datasets for controllable generation, we are facing the problem of not having the domain knowledge and thus the aspects that could be controlled are limited. A typical example is when using CNN/Daily Mail dataset for controllable text summarization, there is no guided information on the emphasis of summary sentences. A more useful text generator should leverage both the input text and the control signal to guide the generation, which can only be built with deep understanding of the domain knowledge. Motivated by this vision, our paper introduces a new text generation dataset, named MReD. Our new dataset consists of 7,089 meta-reviews and all its 45k meta-review sentences are manually annotated with one of the 9 carefully defined categories, including abstract, strength, decision, etc. We present experimental results on start-of-the-art summarization models, and propose methods for structure-controlled generation with both extractive and abstractive models using our annotated data. By exploring various settings and analyzing the model behavior with respect to the control signal, we demonstrate the challenges of our proposed task and the values of our dataset MReD. Meanwhile, MReD also allows us to have a better understanding of the meta-review domain.

Adapter-based tuning has recently arisen as an alternative to fine-tuning. It works by adding light-weight adapter modules to a pretrained language model (PrLM) and only updating the parameters of adapter modules when learning on a downstream task. As such, it adds only a few trainable parameters per new task, allowing a high degree of parameter sharing. Prior studies have shown that adapter-based tuning often achieves comparable results to fine-tuning. However, existing work only focuses on the parameter-efficient aspect of adapter-based tuning while lacking further investigation on its effectiveness. In this paper, we study the latter. We first show that adapter-based tuning better mitigates forgetting issues than fine-tuning since it yields representations with less deviation from those generated by the initial PrLM. We then empirically compare the two tuning methods on several downstream NLP tasks and settings. We demonstrate that 1) adapter-based tuning outperforms fine-tuning on low-resource and cross-lingual tasks; 2) it is more robust to overfitting and less sensitive to changes in learning rates.

Argument pair extraction (APE) is a research task for extracting arguments from two passages and identifying potential argument pairs. Prior research work treats this task as a sequence labeling problem and a binary classification problem on two passages that are directly concatenated together, which has a limitation of not fully utilizing the unique characteristics and inherent relations of two different passages. This paper proposes a novel attention-guided multi-layer multi-cross encoding scheme to address the challenges. The new model processes two passages with two individual sequence encoders and updates their representations using each other’s representations through attention. In addition, the pair prediction part is formulated as a table-filling problem by updating the representations of two sequences’ Cartesian product. Furthermore, an auxiliary attention loss is introduced to guide each argument to align to its paired argument. An extensive set of experiments show that the new model significantly improves the APE performance over several alternatives.

Previous works on knowledge-to-text generation take as input a few RDF triples or key-value pairs conveying the knowledge of some entities to generate a natural language description. Existing datasets, such as WIKIBIO, WebNLG, and E2E, basically have a good alignment between an input triple/pair set and its output text. However, in practice, the input knowledge could be more than enough, since the output description may only cover the most significant knowledge. In this paper, we introduce a large-scale and challenging dataset to facilitate the study of such a practical scenario in KG-to-text. Our dataset involves retrieving abundant knowledge of various types of main entities from a large knowledge graph (KG), which makes the current graph-to-sequence models severely suffer from the problems of information loss and parameter explosion while generating the descriptions. We address these challenges by proposing a multi-graph structure that is able to represent the original graph information more comprehensively. Furthermore, we also incorporate aggregation methods that learn to extract the rich graph information. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our model architecture.

Peer review and rebuttal, with rich interactions and argumentative discussions in between, are naturally a good resource to mine arguments. However, few works study both of them simultaneously. In this paper, we introduce a new argument pair extraction (APE) task on peer review and rebuttal in order to study the contents, the structure and the connections between them. We prepare a challenging dataset that contains 4,764 fully annotated review-rebuttal passage pairs from an open review platform to facilitate the study of this task. To automatically detect argumentative propositions and extract argument pairs from this corpus, we cast it as the combination of a sequence labeling task and a text relation classification task. Thus, we propose a multitask learning framework based on hierarchical LSTM networks. Extensive experiments and analysis demonstrate the effectiveness of our multi-task framework, and also show the challenges of the new task as well as motivate future research directions.