Neele Falk

Neele Falk, Andreas Waldis, Iryna Gurevych

Argument retrieval is the task of finding relevant arguments for a given query. While existing approaches rely solely on the semantic alignment of queries and arguments, this first shared task on perspective argument retrieval incorporates perspectives during retrieval, accounting for latent influences in argumentation. We present a novel multilingual dataset covering demographic and socio-cultural (socio) variables, such as age, gender, and political attitude, representing minority and majority groups in society. We distinguish between three scenarios to explore how retrieval systems consider explicitly (in both query and corpus) and implicitly (only in query) formulated perspectives. This paper provides an overview of this shared task and summarizes the results of the six submitted systems. We find substantial challenges in incorporating perspectivism, especially when aiming for personalization based solely on the text of arguments without explicitly providing socio profiles. Moreover, retrieval systems tend to be biased towards the majority group but partially mitigate bias for the female gender. While we bootstrap perspective argument retrieval, further research is essential to optimize retrieval systems to facilitate personalization and reduce polarization.

Neele Falk, Annerose Eichel, Prisca Piccirilli

Persuasion techniques detection in news in a multi-lingual setup is non-trivial and comes with challenges, including little training data. Our system successfully leverages (back-)translation as data augmentation strategies with multi-lingual transformer models for the task of detecting persuasion techniques. The automatic and human evaluation of our augmented data allows us to explore whether (back-)translation aid or hinder performance. Our in-depth analyses indicate that both data augmentation strategies boost performance; however, balancing human-produced and machine-generated data seems to be crucial.

Filip Miletić, Neele Falk

Has the style of scientific communication changed due to the growing use of large language models in the writing process? We address this question in the domain of Natural Language Processing by leveraging two data resources we create: a naturalistic corpus of over 37,000 papers from the ACL Anthology (2020-2024); and a synthetic dataset of 3,000 human-written passages and their LLM-generated improvements. We first implement a series of diachronic lexical analyses, showing that both word frequency and usage contexts have changed significantly over time, indicating semantic specialization in some cases and generalization in others. Broadening our perspective, we then model a range of more complex stylistic features and find that LLM-modified texts more frequently contain certain syntactic constructions, more complex and longer words and a lower lexical diversity. Finally, we connect these changes in writing practices to subjective reading experience through a pilot annotation study with 20 domain experts. They overall rate LLM-improved texts as more understandable and exciting, but also express negative qualitative attitudes towards LLMs, highlighting the strongly subjective effect of AI-assisted writing on reading experience.

Michiel van der Meer, Neele Falk, Pradeep K. Murukannaiah et al.

Active Learning (AL) addresses the high costs of collecting human annotations by strategically annotating the most informative samples. However, for subjective NLP tasks, incorporating a wide range of perspectives in the annotation process is crucial to capture the variability in human judgments. We introduce Annotator-Centric Active Learning (ACAL), which incorporates an annotator selection strategy following data sampling. Our objective is two-fold: 1) to efficiently approximate the full diversity of human judgments, and 2) to assess model performance using annotator-centric metrics, which value minority and majority perspectives equally. We experiment with multiple annotator selection strategies across seven subjective NLP tasks, employing both traditional and novel, human-centered evaluation metrics. Our findings indicate that ACAL improves data efficiency and excels in annotator-centric performance evaluations. However, its success depends on the availability of a sufficiently large and diverse pool of annotators to sample from.

Carlotta Quensel, Neele Falk, Gabriella Lapesa

In assessing argument strength, the notions of what makes a good argument are manifold. With the broader trend towards treating subjectivity as an asset and not a problem in NLP, new dimensions of argument quality are studied. Although studies on individual subjective features like personal stories exist, there is a lack of large-scale analyses of the relation between these features and argument strength. To address this gap, we conduct regression analysis to quantify the impact of subjective factors $-$ emotions, storytelling, and hedging $-$ on two standard datasets annotated for objective argument quality and subjective persuasion. As such, our contribution is twofold: at the level of contributed resources, as there are no datasets annotated with all studied dimensions, this work compares and evaluates automated annotation methods for each subjective feature. At the level of novel insights, our regression analysis uncovers different patterns of impact of subjective features on the two facets of argument strength encoded in the datasets. Our results show that storytelling and hedging have contrasting effects on objective and subjective argument quality, while the influence of emotions depends on their rhetoric utilization rather than the domain.