The convincingness of an argument does not only depend on its structure (logos), the person who makes the argument (ethos), but also on the emotion that it causes in the recipient (pathos). While the overall intensity and categorical values of emotions in arguments have received considerable attention in the research community, we argue that the emotion an argument evokes in a recipient is subjective. It depends on the recipient's goals, standards, prior knowledge, and stance. Appraisal theories lend themselves as a link between the subjective cognitive assessment of events and emotions. They have been used in event-centric emotion analysis, but their suitability for assessing argument convincingness remains unexplored. In this paper, we evaluate whether appraisal theories are suitable for emotion analysis in arguments by considering subjective cognitive evaluations of the importance and impact of an argument on its receiver. Based on the annotations in the recently published ContArgA corpus, we perform zero-shot prompting experiments to evaluate the importance of gold-annotated and predicted emotions and appraisals for the assessment of the subjective convincingness labels. We find that, while categorical emotion information does improve convincingness prediction, the improvement is more pronounced with appraisals. This work presents the first systematic comparison between emotion models for convincingness prediction, demonstrating the advantage of appraisals, providing insights for theoretical and practical applications in computational argumentation.

Emotions that somebody develops based on an argument do not only depend on the argument itself - they are also influenced by a subjective evaluation of the argument's potential impact on the self. For instance, an argument to ban plastic bottles might cause fear of losing a job for a bottle industry worker, which lowers the convincingness - presumably independent of its content. While binary emotionality of arguments has been studied, such cognitive appraisal models have only been proposed in other subtasks of emotion analysis, but not in the context of arguments and their convincingness. To fill this research gap, we propose the Contextualized Argument Appraisal Framework to model the interplay between the sender, receiver, and argument. We adapt established appraisal models from psychology to argument mining, including argument pleasantness, familiarity, response urgency, and expected effort, as well as convincingness variables. To evaluate the framework and pave the way for computational modeling, we develop a novel role-playing-based annotation setup, mimicking real-world exposure to arguments. Participants disclose their emotion, explain the main cause, the argument appraisal, and the perceived convincingness. To consider the subjective nature of such annotations, we also collect demographic data and personality traits of both the participants and ask them to disclose the same variables for their perception of the argument sender. The analysis of the resulting ContArgA corpus of 4000 annotations reveals that convincingness is positively correlated with positive emotions (e.g., trust) and negatively correlated with negative emotions (e.g., anger). The appraisal variables particularly point to the importance of the annotator's familiarity with the argument.

While hallucinations of large language models could been alleviated through retrieval-augmented generation and citation generation, how the model utilizes internal knowledge is still opaque, and the trustworthiness of its generated answers remains questionable. In this work, we introduce Context-Prior Augmented Citation Generation task, requiring models to generate citations considering both external and internal knowledge while providing trustworthy references, with 5 evaluation metrics focusing on 3 aspects: answer helpfulness, citation faithfulness, and trustworthiness. We introduce RAEL, the paradigm for our task, and also design INTRALIGN, an integrated method containing customary data generation and an alignment algorithm. Our experimental results show that our method achieves a better cross-scenario performance with regard to other baselines. Our extended experiments further reveal that retrieval quality, question types, and model knowledge have considerable influence on the trustworthiness in citation generation.

Emotions have been shown to play a role in argument convincingness, yet this aspect is underexplored in the natural language processing (NLP) community. Unlike prior studies that use static analyses, focus on a single text domain or language, or treat emotion as just one of many factors, we introduce a dynamic framework inspired by manipulation checks commonly used in psychology and social science; leveraging LLM-based manipulation checks, this framework examines the extent to which perceived emotional intensity influences perceived convincingness. Through human evaluation of arguments across different languages, text domains, and topics, we find that in over half of cases, judgments of convincingness remain unchanged despite variations in perceived emotional intensity; when emotions do have an impact, they more often enhance rather than weaken convincingness. We further analyze how 11 LLMs behave in the same scenario, finding that while LLMs generally mirror human patterns, they struggle to capture nuanced emotional effects in individual judgments.

Arguments evoke emotions, influencing the effect of the argument itself. Not only the emotional intensity but also the category influence the argument's effects, for instance, the willingness to adapt stances. While binary emotionality has been studied in arguments, there is no work on discrete emotion categories (e.g., "Anger") in such data. To fill this gap, we crowdsource subjective annotations of emotion categories in a German argument corpus and evaluate automatic LLM-based labeling methods. Specifically, we compare three prompting strategies (zero-shot, one-shot, chain-of-thought) on three large instruction-tuned language models (Falcon-7b-instruct, Llama-3.1-8B-instruct, GPT-4o-mini). We further vary the definition of the output space to be binary (is there emotionality in the argument?), closed-domain (which emotion from a given label set is in the argument?), or open-domain (which emotion is in the argument?). We find that emotion categories enhance the prediction of emotionality in arguments, emphasizing the need for discrete emotion annotations in arguments. Across all prompt settings and models, automatic predictions show a high recall but low precision for predicting anger and fear, indicating a strong bias toward negative emotions.

Retrieval-augmented language models are being increasingly tasked with subjective, contentious, and conflicting queries such as "is aspartame linked to cancer". To resolve these ambiguous queries, one must search through a large range of websites and consider "which, if any, of this evidence do I find convincing?". In this work, we study how LLMs answer this question. In particular, we construct ConflictingQA, a dataset that pairs controversial queries with a series of real-world evidence documents that contain different facts (e.g., quantitative results), argument styles (e.g., appeals to authority), and answers (Yes or No). We use this dataset to perform sensitivity and counterfactual analyses to explore which text features most affect LLM predictions. Overall, we find that current models rely heavily on the relevance of a website to the query, while largely ignoring stylistic features that humans find important such as whether a text contains scientific references or is written with a neutral tone. Taken together, these results highlight the importance of RAG corpus quality (e.g., the need to filter misinformation), and possibly even a shift in how LLMs are trained to better align with human judgements.

Natural language is among the most accessible tools for explaining decisions to humans, and large pretrained language models (PLMs) have demonstrated impressive abilities to generate coherent natural language explanations (NLE). The existing NLE research perspectives do not take the audience into account. An NLE can have high textual quality, but it might not accommodate audiences' needs and preference. To address this limitation, we propose an alternative perspective, situated NLE, including a situated generation framework and a situated evaluation framework. On the generation side, we propose simple prompt engineering methods that adapt the NLEs to situations. In human studies, the annotators preferred the situated NLEs. On the evaluation side, we set up automated evaluation scores in lexical, semantic, and pragmatic categories. The scores can be used to select the most suitable prompts to generate NLEs. Situated NLE provides a perspective to conduct further research on automatic NLE generations.

With the advancement in argument detection, we suggest to pay more attention to the challenging task of identifying the more convincing arguments. Machines capable of responding and interacting with humans in helpful ways have become ubiquitous. We now expect them to discuss with us the more delicate questions in our world, and they should do so armed with effective arguments. But what makes an argument more persuasive? What will convince you? In this paper, we present a new data set, IBM-EviConv, of pairs of evidence labeled for convincingness, designed to be more challenging than existing alternatives. We also propose a Siamese neural network architecture shown to outperform several baselines on both a prior convincingness data set and our own. Finally, we provide insights into our experimental results and the various kinds of argumentative value our method is capable of detecting.

Peer review is a core element of the scientific process, particularly in conference-centered fields such as ML and NLP. However, only few studies have evaluated its properties empirically. Aiming to fill this gap, we present a corpus that contains over 4k reviews and 1.2k author responses from ACL-2018. We quantitatively and qualitatively assess the corpus. This includes a pilot study on paper weaknesses given by reviewers and on quality of author responses. We then focus on the role of the rebuttal phase, and propose a novel task to predict after-rebuttal (i.e., final) scores from initial reviews and author responses. Although author responses do have a marginal (and statistically significant) influence on the final scores, especially for borderline papers, our results suggest that a reviewer's final score is largely determined by her initial score and the distance to the other reviewers' initial scores. In this context, we discuss the conformity bias inherent to peer reviewing, a bias that has largely been overlooked in previous research. We hope our analyses will help better assess the usefulness of the rebuttal phase in NLP conferences.