Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized various Natural Language Generation (NLG) tasks, including Argument Summarization (ArgSum), a key subfield of Argument Mining (AM). This paper investigates the integration of state-of-the-art LLMs into ArgSum, including for its evaluation. In particular, we propose a novel prompt-based evaluation scheme, and validate it through a novel human benchmark dataset. Our work makes three main contributions: (i) the integration of LLMs into existing ArgSum frameworks, (ii) the development of a new LLM-based ArgSum system, benchmarked against prior methods, and (iii) the introduction of an advanced LLM-based evaluation scheme. We demonstrate that the use of LLMs substantially improves both the generation and evaluation of argument summaries, achieving state-of-the-art results and advancing the field of ArgSum.

People naturally vary in their annotations for subjective questions and some of this variation is thought to be due to the person's sociodemographic characteristics. LLMs have also been used to label data, but recent work has shown that models perform poorly when prompted with sociodemographic attributes, suggesting limited inherent sociodemographic knowledge. Here, we ask whether LLMs can be trained to be accurate sociodemographic models of annotator variation. Using a curated dataset of five tasks with standardized sociodemographics, we show that models do improve in sociodemographic prompting when trained but that this performance gain is largely due to models learning annotator-specific behaviour rather than sociodemographic patterns. Across all tasks, our results suggest that models learn little meaningful connection between sociodemographics and annotation, raising doubts about the current use of LLMs for simulating sociodemographic variation and behaviour.

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.

In this paper, we examine the impact of lexicalization on Question Answering over Linked Data (QALD). It is well known that one of the key challenges in interpreting natural language questions with respect to SPARQL lies in bridging the lexical gap, that is mapping the words in the query to the correct vocabulary elements. We argue in this paper that lexicalization, that is explicit knowledge about the potential interpretations of a word with respect to the given vocabulary, significantly eases the task and increases the performance of QA systems. Towards this goal, we present a compositional QA system that can leverage explicit lexical knowledge in a compositional manner to infer the meaning of a question in terms of a SPARQL query. We show that such a system, given lexical knowledge, has a performance well beyond current QA systems, achieving up to a $35.8\%$ increase in the micro $F_1$ score compared to the best QA system on QALD-9. This shows the importance and potential of including explicit lexical knowledge. In contrast, we show that LLMs have limited abilities to exploit lexical knowledge, with only marginal improvements compared to a version without lexical knowledge. This shows that LLMs have no ability to compositionally interpret a question on the basis of the meaning of its parts, a key feature of compositional approaches. Taken together, our work shows new avenues for QALD research, emphasizing the importance of lexicalization and compositionality.

Link Prediction (LP) is an essential task over Knowledge Graphs (KGs), traditionally focussed on using and predicting the relations between entities. Textual entity descriptions have already been shown to be valuable, but models that incorporate numerical literals have shown minor improvements on existing benchmark datasets. It is unclear whether a model is actually better in using numerical literals, or better capable of utilizing the graph structure. This raises doubts about the effectiveness of these methods and about the suitability of the existing benchmark datasets. We propose a methodology to evaluate LP models that incorporate numerical literals. We propose i) a new synthetic dataset to better understand how well these models use numerical literals and ii) dataset ablations strategies to investigate potential difficulties with the existing datasets. We identify a prevalent trend: many models underutilize literal information and potentially rely on additional parameters for performance gains. Our investigation highlights the need for more extensive evaluations when releasing new models and datasets.

Explanations are pervasive in our lives. Mostly, they occur in dialogical form where an explainer discusses a concept or phenomenon of interest with an explainee. Leaving the explainee with a clear understanding is not straightforward due to the knowledge gap between the two participants. Previous research looked at the interaction of explanation moves, dialogue acts, and topics in successful dialogues with expert explainers. However, daily-life explanations often fail, raising the question of what makes a dialogue successful. In this work, we study explanation dialogues in terms of the interactions between the explainer and explainee and how they correlate with the quality of explanations in terms of a successful understanding on the explainee's side. In particular, we first construct a corpus of 399 dialogues from the Reddit forum Explain Like I am Five and annotate it for interaction flows and explanation quality. We then analyze the interaction flows, comparing them to those appearing in expert dialogues. Finally, we encode the interaction flows using two language models that can handle long inputs, and we provide empirical evidence for the effectiveness boost gained through the encoding in predicting the success of explanation dialogues.

In recent years, large language models have achieved state-of-the-art performance across various NLP tasks. However, investigations have shown that these models tend to rely on shortcut features, leading to inaccurate predictions and causing the models to be unreliable at generalization to out-of-distribution (OOD) samples. For instance, in the context of relation extraction (RE), we would expect a model to identify the same relation independently of the entities involved in it. For example, consider the sentence "Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa" expressing the created(Leonardo da Vinci, Mona Lisa) relation. If we substiute "Leonardo da Vinci" with "Barack Obama", then the sentence still expresses the created relation. A robust model is supposed to detect the same relation in both cases. In this work, we describe several semantically-motivated strategies to generate adversarial examples by replacing entity mentions and investigate how state-of-the-art RE models perform under pressure. Our analyses show that the performance of these models significantly deteriorates on the modified datasets (avg. of -48.5% in F 1), which indicates that these models rely to a great extent on shortcuts, such as surface forms (or patterns therein) of entities, without making full use of the information present in the sentences.

Many annotation tasks in natural language processing are highly subjective in that there can be different valid and justified perspectives on what is a proper label for a given example. This also applies to the judgment of argument quality, where the assignment of a single ground truth is often questionable. At the same time, there are generally accepted concepts behind argumentation that form a common ground. To best represent the interplay of individual and shared perspectives, we consider a continuum of approaches ranging from models that fully aggregate perspectives into a majority label to "share nothing"-architectures in which each annotator is considered in isolation from all other annotators. In between these extremes, inspired by models used in the field of recommender systems, we investigate the extent to which architectures that include layers to model the relations between different annotators are beneficial for predicting single-annotator labels. By means of two tasks of argument quality classification (argument concreteness and validity/novelty of conclusions), we show that recommender architectures increase the averaged annotator-individual F$_1$-scores up to $43\%$ over a majority label model. Our findings indicate that approaches to subjectivity can benefit from relating individual perspectives.

OTTR is a language for representing ontology modeling patterns, which enables to build ontologies or knowledge bases by instantiating templates. Thereby, particularities of the ontological representation language are hidden from the domain experts, and it enables ontology engineers to, to some extent, separate the processes of deciding about what information to model from deciding about how to model the information, e.g., which design patterns to use. Certain decisions can thus be postponed for the benefit of focusing on one of these processes. To date, only few works on ontology engineering where ontology templates are applied are described in the literature. In this paper, we outline our methodology and report findings from our ontology engineering activities in the domain of Material Science. In these activities, OTTR templates play a key role. Our ontology engineering process is bottom-up, as we begin modeling activities from existing data that is then, via templates, fed into a knowledge graph, and it is top-down, as we first focus on which data to model and postpone the decision of how to model the data. We find, among other things, that OTTR templates are especially useful as a means of communication with domain experts. Furthermore, we find that because OTTR templates encapsulate modeling decisions, the engineering process becomes flexible, meaning that design decisions can be changed at little cost.

Many NLP tasks exhibit human label variation, where different annotators give different labels to the same texts. This variation is known to depend, at least in part, on the sociodemographics of annotators. Recent research aims to model individual annotator behaviour rather than predicting aggregated labels, and we would expect that sociodemographic information is useful for these models. On the other hand, the ecological fallacy states that aggregate group behaviour, such as the behaviour of the average female annotator, does not necessarily explain individual behaviour. To account for sociodemographics in models of individual annotator behaviour, we introduce group-specific layers to multi-annotator models. In a series of experiments for toxic content detection, we find that explicitly accounting for sociodemographic attributes in this way does not significantly improve model performance. This result shows that individual annotation behaviour depends on much more than just sociodemographics.