Contextual Interaction for Argument Post Quality Assessment
Yiran Wang, Xuanang Chen, Ben He, Le Sun
Abstract
Recently, there has been an increased emphasis on assessing the quality of natural language arguments. Existing approaches primarily focus on evaluating the quality of individual argument posts. However, they often fall short when it comes to effectively distinguishing arguments that possess a narrow quality margin. To address this limitation, this paper delves into two alternative methods for modeling the relative quality of different arguments: 1) Supervised contrastive learning that captures the intricate interactions between arguments. By incorporating this approach, we aim to enhance the assessment of argument quality by effectively distinguishing between arguments with subtle differences. 2) Large language models (LLMs) with in-context examples that harness the power of LLMs and enrich them with incontext demonstration. Through extensive evaluation and analysis on the publicly available IBM-Rank-30k dataset, we demonstrate the superiority of our contrastive interaction approach over state-of-the-art baselines. On the other hand, while LLMs with in-context examples demonstrate a commendable ability to identify high-quality argument posts, they exhibit relatively limited effectiveness in quantifying argument quality and distinguishing between arguments with a narrow quality gap. Code is available at https://github.com/ucasYW/Contextual-Interaction-for-AQA .
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 050900e4-919b-4b09-b74b-e0887c6ff9daCited by top-tier papers3
- InspireDebate: Multi-Dimensional Subjective-Objective Evaluation-Guided Reasoning and Optimization for DebatingFuyu Wang, Jiangtong Li, Kun Zhu, Changjun JiangACL 2025 · 3 citations
- Let's discuss! Quality Dimensions and Annotated Datasets for Computational Argument Quality AssessmentRositsa V. Ivanova, Thomas Huber, Christina NiklausEMNLP 2024 · 2 citations
- Evaluation and Facilitation of Online Discussions in the LLM Era: A SurveyKaterina Korre, Dimitris Tsirmpas, Nikos Gkoumas, Emma Cabalé et al.EMNLP 2025
Builds on7
- Supervised Contrastive LearningPrannay Khosla, Piotr Teterwak, Chen Wang, Aaron Sarna et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 7,049 citations
- HuggingGPT: Solving AI Tasks with ChatGPT and its Friends in Hugging FaceYongliang Shen, Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Dongsheng Li et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 1,778 citations
- A Large-Scale Dataset for Argument Quality Ranking: Construction and AnalysisShai Gretz, Roni Friedman, Edo Cohen-Karlik, Assaf Toledo et al.AAAI 2020 · 148 citations
- SetRank: Learning a Permutation-Invariant Ranking Model for Information RetrievalLiang Pang, Jun Xu, Qingyao Ai, Yanyan Lan et al.SIGIR 2020 · 113 citations
- Ask Me Anything: A simple strategy for prompting language modelsSimran Arora, Avanika Narayan, Mayee F. Chen, Laurel J. Orr et al.ICLR 2023 · 74 citations
Related papers
- A Multi-persona Framework for Argument Quality AssessmentBojun Jin, Jianzhu Bao, Yufang Hou, Yang Sun et al.ACL 2025
- A Simple Contrastive Learning Framework for Interactive Argument Pair Identification via Argument-Context ExtractionLida Shi, Fausto Giunchiglia, Rui Song, Daqian Shi et al.EMNLP 2022 · 4 citations
- How to Compare Things Properly? A Study of Argument Relevance in Comparative Question AnsweringIrina Nikishina, Saba Anwar, Nikolay Dolgov, Maria Manina et al.ACL 2025
- AI Argues Differently: Distinct Argumentative and Linguistic Patterns of LLMs in Persuasive ContextsEsra Dönmez, Maximilian Maurer, Gabriella Lapesa, Agnieszka FalenskaEMNLP 2025 · 1 citation
- Argue with Me Tersely: Towards Sentence-Level Counter-Argument GenerationJiayu Lin, Rong Ye, Meng Han, Qi Zhang et al.EMNLP 2023 · 2 citations
