Moritz Plenz

Moritz Plenz, Anette Frank

While Language Models (LMs) are the workhorses of NLP, their interplay with structured knowledge graphs (KGs) is still actively researched. Current methods for encoding such graphs typically either (i) linearize them for embedding with LMs -- which underutilize structural information, or (ii) use Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) to preserve the graph structure -- but GNNs cannot represent text features as well as pretrained LMs. In our work we introduce a novel LM type, the Graph Language Model (GLM), that integrates the strengths of both approaches and mitigates their weaknesses. The GLM parameters are initialized from a pretrained LM to enhance understanding of individual graph concepts and triplets. Simultaneously, we design the GLM's architecture to incorporate graph biases, thereby promoting effective knowledge distribution within the graph. This enables GLMs to process graphs, texts, and interleaved inputs of both. Empirical evaluations on relation classification tasks show that GLM embeddings surpass both LM- and GNN-based baselines in supervised and zero-shot setting, demonstrating their versatility.

Moritz Plenz, Philipp Heinisch, Janosch Gehring et al.

Debating over conflicting issues is a necessary first step towards resolving conflicts. However, intrinsic perspectives of an arguer are difficult to overcome by persuasive argumentation skills. Proceeding from a debate to a deliberative process, where we can identify actionable options for resolving a conflict requires a deeper analysis of arguments and the perspectives they are grounded in - as it is only from there that one can derive mutually agreeable resolution steps. In this work we develop a framework for a deliberative analysis of arguments in a computational argumentation setup. We conduct a fine-grained analysis of perspectivized stances expressed in the arguments of different arguers or stakeholders on a given issue, aiming not only to identify their opposing views, but also shared perspectives arising from their attitudes, values or needs. We formalize this analysis in Perspectivized Stance Vectors that characterize the individual perspectivized stances of all arguers on a given issue. We construct these vectors by determining issue- and argument-specific concepts, and predict an arguer's stance relative to each of them. The vectors allow us to measure a modulated (dis)agreement between arguers, structured by perspectives, which allows us to identify actionable points for conflict resolution, as a first step towards deliberation.

Moritz Plenz, Juri Opitz, Philipp Heinisch et al.

Arguments often do not make explicit how a conclusion follows from its premises. To compensate for this lack, we enrich arguments with structured background knowledge to support knowledge-intense argumentation tasks. We present a new unsupervised method for constructing Contextualized Commonsense Knowledge Graphs (CCKGs) that selects contextually relevant knowledge from large knowledge graphs (KGs) efficiently and at high quality. Our work goes beyond context-insensitive knowledge extraction heuristics by computing semantic similarity between KG triplets and textual arguments. Using these triplet similarities as weights, we extract contextualized knowledge paths that connect a conclusion to its premise, while maximizing similarity to the argument. We combine multiple paths into a CCKG that we optionally prune to reduce noise and raise precision. Intrinsic evaluation of the quality of our graphs shows that our method is effective for (re)constructing human explanation graphs. Manual evaluations in a large-scale knowledge selection setup confirm high recall and precision of implicit CSK in the CCKGs. Finally, we demonstrate the effectiveness of CCKGs in a knowledge-insensitive argument quality rating task, outperforming strong baselines and rivaling a GPT-3 based system.