On the Visualisation of Argumentation Graphs to Support Text Interpretation
AI-generated Key Points
- Recent advancements in Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods, particularly in argumentation mining, have the potential to revolutionize text interaction and analysis of complex discourse and debates.
- A study investigated whether a graphic visualization of complex argumentation could enable a more critical interpretation of arguments.
- The study presented 10 argument topics in two models: PTM (text-based model) and a 2D AGM (structured representation of an argument).
- The structured modality (2D AGM) significantly outperformed the text-based one (PTM) in terms of attractiveness, perspicuity, efficiency, dependability, and stimulation.
- Participants found it easier to interpret arguments using AGs than textual representations.
- Participants chose more critical questions when they were less familiar with the topic being discussed.
- There is a trade-off between time spent interpreting an argument and critical interpretation; while introducing a temporal overhead, the additional structure forces users to be more critical and systematic when judging the quality of an argument.
- Both models had similar effects on working memory.
- The study's limitations include its small sample size (25 participants), which may not be representative enough to generalize its findings across different populations or tasks.
- Future studies are needed to understand how humans critically interpret complex arguments or debates better.
- Visualizing complex argumentation through 2D AGMs can support critical interpretations of arguments; especially for unfamiliar topics.
- The study's findings have implications for designing more effective tools and methods to support critical interpretation processes in various domains including education journalism and law.
- Future studies should aim to validate these results and examine their influence on different populations tasks and settings.
Authors: Hanadi Mardah, Oskar Wysocki, Markel Vigo, Andre Freitas
Abstract: The recent evolution in Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods, in particular in the field of argumentation mining, has the potential to transform the way we interact with text, supporting the interpretation and analysis of complex discourse and debates. Can a graphic visualisation of complex argumentation enable a more critical interpretation of the arguments? This study focuses on analysing the impact of argumentation graphs (AGs) compared with regular texts for supporting argument interpretation. We found that AGs outperformed the extrinsic metrics throughout most UEQ scales as well as the NASA-TLX workload in all the terms but not in temporal or physical demand. The AG model was liked by a more significant number of participants, despite the fact that both the text-based and AG models yielded comparable outcomes in the critical interpretation in terms of working memory and altering participants decisions. The interpretation process involves reference to argumentation schemes (linked to critical questions (CQs)) in AGs. Interestingly, we found that the participants chose more CQs (using argument schemes in AGs) when they were less familiar with the argument topics, making AG schemes on some scales (relatively) supportive of the interpretation process. Therefore, AGs were considered to deliver a more critical approach to argument interpretation, especially with unfamiliar topics. Based on the 25 participants conducted in this study, it appears that AG has demonstrated an overall positive effect on the argument interpretation process.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through atree representation
Look for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.