mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Learning from Auxiliary Sources in Argumentative Revision Classification

arXiv 2309.07334 ↗First posted 13 Sep 2023cs.CL cs.AIcited by 0

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

  1. 2020AMPERSAND: Argument Mining for PERSuAsive oNline Discussionscited by 39
  2. 2014A Corpus of Sentence-level Revisions in Academic Writing: A Step towards Understanding Statement Strength in Communicationcited by 14
  3. 2018Multi-Task Learning for Argumentation Mining in Low-Resource Settingscited by 10
  4. 2021Annotation and Classification of Evidence and Reasoning Revisions in Argumentative Writingcited by 9
  5. 2020An Exploratory Study of Argumentative Writing by Young Students: A Transformer-based Approachcited by 6
  6. 2023Predicting Desirable Revisions of Evidence and Reasoning in Argumentative Writingcited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.