Abstract

Argumentation is ubiquitous in natural language communication, from politics and media to everyday work and private life. Many arguments derive their persuasive power from human values, such as self-directed thought or tolerance, albeit often implicitly. These values are key to understanding the semantics of arguments, as they are generally accepted as justifications for why a particular option is ethically desirable. Can automated systems uncover the values on which an argument draws? To answer this question, 39 teams submitted runs to ValueEval’23. Using a multi-sourced dataset of over 9K arguments, the systems achieved F 1-scores up to 0.87 (nature) and over 0.70 for three more of 20 universal value categories. However, many challenges remain, as evidenced by the low peak F 1-score of 0.39 for stimulation, hedonism, face, and humility.

Links and resources

Tags

community

  • @ail3s
  • @dblp
@ail3s's tags highlighted