Rationality, pragmatics, and sources

This thesis contributes to the Great Rationality Debate in cognitive science. It introduces and explores a triangular scheme for understanding the relationship between rationality and two key abilities: pragmatics – roughly, inferring implicit intended utterance meanings – and learning from sources. The thesis argues that these three components – rationality, pragmatics, and sources – should be considered together: that each one informs the others. The thesis makes this case through literature review and theoretical work (principally, in Chapters 1 and 8) and through a series of empirical chapters focusing on different parts of the triangular scheme. Chapters 2 to 4 address the relationship between pragmatics and sources, focusing on how people change their beliefs when they read a conditional with a partially reliable source. The data bear on theories of the conditional and on the literature assessing people’s rationality with conditionals. Chapter 5 addresses the relationship between rationality and pragmatics, focusing on conditionals ‘in action’ in a framing effect known as goal framing. The data suggest a complex relationship between pragmatics and utilities, and support a new approach to goal framing. Chapter 6 addresses the relationship between rationality and sources, using normative Bayesian models to explore how people respond to simple claims from sources of different reliabilities. The data support a two-way relationship between claims and source information and, perhaps most strikingly, suggest that people readily treat sources as ‘anti-reliable’: as negatively correlated with the truth. Chapter 7 extends these experiments to test the theory that speakers can guard against reputational damage using hedging. The data do not support this theory, and raise questions about whether trust and vigilance against deception are prerequisites for pragmatics. Lastly, Chapter 8 synthesizes the results; argues for new ways of understanding the relationships between rationality, pragmatics, and sources; and relates the findings to emerging formal methods in psychology

Quality and Aspect based Argument Generation

Natural Language Processing has always been one of the most popular topics in Artificial Intelligence. Argument-related research in NLP, such as argument detection, argument mining and argument generation, has been popular, especially in recent years. In our daily lives, we use arguments to express ourselves. The quality of arguments heavily impacts the effectiveness of our communications with others. In professional fields, such as legislation and academic areas, arguments of good quality play an even more critical role. Therefore, argument generation with good quality is a challenging research task that is also of great importance in NLP. The aim of this work is to investigate the automatic generation of arguments with good quality, according to the given topic, stance and aspect (control codes). To achieve this goal, a module based on BERT [17] which could judge an argument's quality is constructed. This module is used to assess the quality of the generated arguments. Another module based on GPT-2 [19] is implemented to generate arguments. Stances and aspects are also used as guidance when generating arguments. After combining all these models and techniques, the ranks of the generated arguments could be acquired to evaluate the final performance. This dissertation describes the architecture and experimental setup, analyzes the results of our experimentation, and discusses future directions

Differential Bias:On the Perceptibility of Stance Imbalance in Argumentation

Most research on natural language processing treats bias as an absolute concept: Based on a (probably complex) algorithmic analysis, a sentence, an article, or a text is classified as biased or not. Given the fact that for humans the question of whether a text is biased can be difficult to answer or is answered contradictory, we ask whether an "absolute bias classification" is a promising goal at all. We see the problem not in the complexity of interpreting language phenomena but in the diversity of sociocultural backgrounds of the readers, which cannot be handled uniformly: To decide whether a text has crossed the proverbial line between non-biased and biased is subjective. By asking "Is text X more [less, equally] biased than text Y?" we propose to analyze a simpler problem, which, by its construction, is rather independent of standpoints, views, or sociocultural aspects. In such a model, bias becomes a preference relation that induces a partial ordering from least biased to most biased texts without requiring a decision on where to draw the line. A prerequisite for this kind of bias model is the ability of humans to perceive relative bias differences in the first place. In our research, we selected a specific type of bias in argumentation, the stance bias, and designed a crowdsourcing study showing that differences in stance bias are perceptible when (light) support is provided through training or visual aid

Mining arguments in scientific abstracts: Application to argumentative quality assessment

Argument mining consists in the automatic identification of argumentative structures in natural language, a task that has been recognized as particularly challenging in the scientific domain. In this work we propose SciARG, a new annotation scheme, and apply it to the identification of argumentative units and relations in abstracts in two scientific disciplines: computational linguistics and biomedicine, which allows us to assess the applicability of our scheme to different knowledge fields. We use our annotated corpus to train and evaluate argument mining models in various experimental settings, including single and multi-task learning. We investigate the possibility of leveraging existing annotations, including discourse relations and rhetorical roles of sentences, to improve the performance of argument mining models. In particular, we explore the potential offered by a sequential transfer- learning approach in which supplementary training tasks are used to fine-tune pre-trained parameter-rich language models. Finally, we analyze the practical usability of the automatically-extracted components and relations for the prediction of argumentative quality dimensions of scientific abstracts.Agencia Nacional de Investigación e InnovaciónMinisterio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad (España