Learning from Auxiliary Sources in Argumentative Revision Classification
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We develop models to classify desirable reasoning revisions in argumentative writing. We explore two approaches -- multi-task learning and transfer learning -- to take advantage of auxiliary sources of revision data for similar tasks. Results of intrinsic and extrinsic evaluations show that both approaches can indeed improve classifier performance over baselines. While multi-task learning shows that training on different sources of data at the same time may improve performance, transfer-learning better represents the relationship between the data.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 8 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Sep 2023.
Builds on
6 of 8 references.
References · 6
- 2020AMPERSAND: Argument Mining for PERSuAsive oNline Discussionscited by 39
- 2014A Corpus of Sentence-level Revisions in Academic Writing: A Step towards Understanding Statement Strength in Communicationcited by 14
- 2018Multi-Task Learning for Argumentation Mining in Low-Resource Settingscited by 10
- 2021Annotation and Classification of Evidence and Reasoning Revisions in Argumentative Writingcited by 9
- 2020An Exploratory Study of Argumentative Writing by Young Students: A Transformer-based Approachcited by 6
- 2023Predicting Desirable Revisions of Evidence and Reasoning in Argumentative Writingcited by 6
Built on by
Not cited yet.