4.9CLMay 21, 2025Code
DayDreamer at CQs-Gen 2025: Generating Critical Questions through Argument Scheme CompletionWendi Zhou, Ameer Saadat-Yazdi, Nadin Kökciyan
Critical questions are essential resources to provoke critical thinking when encountering an argumentative text. We present our system for the Critical Questions Generation (CQs-Gen) Shared Task at ArgMining 2025. Our approach leverages large language models (LLMs) with chain-of-thought prompting to generate critical questions guided by Walton's argumentation schemes. For each input intervention, we conversationally prompt LLMs to instantiate the corresponding argument scheme template to first obtain structured arguments, and then generate relevant critical questions. Following this, we rank all the available critical questions by prompting LLMs to select the top 3 most helpful questions based on the original intervention text. This combination of structured argumentation theory and step-by-step reasoning enables the generation of contextually relevant and diverse critical questions. Our pipeline achieves competitive performance in the final test set, showing its potential to foster critical thinking given argumentative text and detect missing or uninformed claims. Code available at \href{https://git.ecdf.ed.ac.uk/s2236454/DayDreamer-CQs-Gen}{DayDreamer}.
9.6AIJan 7, 2024
Computational Argumentation-based Chatbots: a SurveyFederico Castagna, Nadin Kokciyan, Isabel Sassoon et al.
Chatbots are conversational software applications designed to interact dialectically with users for a plethora of different purposes. Surprisingly, these colloquial agents have only recently been coupled with computational models of arguments (i.e. computational argumentation), whose aim is to formalise, in a machine-readable format, the ordinary exchange of information that characterises human communications. Chatbots may employ argumentation with different degrees and in a variety of manners. The present survey sifts through the literature to review papers concerning this kind of argumentation-based bot, drawing conclusions about the benefits and drawbacks that this approach entails in comparison with standard chatbots, while also envisaging possible future development and integration with the Transformer-based architecture and state-of-the-art Large Language models.
6.7CLMay 8, 2025
Toward Reasonable Parrots: Why Large Language Models Should Argue with Us by DesignElena Musi, Nadin Kokciyan, Khalid Al-Khatib et al.
In this position paper, we advocate for the development of conversational technology that is inherently designed to support and facilitate argumentative processes. We argue that, at present, large language models (LLMs) are inadequate for this purpose, and we propose an ideal technology design aimed at enhancing argumentative skills. This involves re-framing LLMs as tools to exercise our critical thinking skills rather than replacing them. We introduce the concept of \textit{reasonable parrots} that embody the fundamental principles of relevance, responsibility, and freedom, and that interact through argumentative dialogical moves. These principles and moves arise out of millennia of work in argumentation theory and should serve as the starting point for LLM-based technology that incorporates basic principles of argumentation.
6.7CLJun 11, 2025
Aspect-Based Opinion Summarization with Argumentation SchemesWendi Zhou, Ameer Saadat-Yazdi, Nadin Kokciyan
Reviews are valuable resources for customers making purchase decisions in online shopping. However, it is impractical for customers to go over the vast number of reviews and manually conclude the prominent opinions, which prompts the need for automated opinion summarization systems. Previous approaches, either extractive or abstractive, face challenges in automatically producing grounded aspect-centric summaries. In this paper, we propose a novel summarization system that not only captures predominant opinions from an aspect perspective with supporting evidence, but also adapts to varying domains without relying on a pre-defined set of aspects. Our proposed framework, ASESUM, summarizes viewpoints relevant to the critical aspects of a product by extracting aspect-centric arguments and measuring their salience and validity. We conduct experiments on a real-world dataset to demonstrate the superiority of our approach in capturing diverse perspectives of the original reviews compared to new and existing methods.