The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
DebateSum: A large-scale argument mining and summarization dataset
Open accessAbstract
Prior work in Argument Mining frequently alludes to its potential applications in automatic debating systems. Despite this focus, almost no datasets or models exist which apply natural language processing techniques to problems found within competitive formal debate. To remedy this, we present the DebateSum dataset. DebateSum consists of 187,386 unique pieces of evidence with corresponding argument and extractive summaries. DebateSum was made using data compiled by competitors within the National Speech and Debate Association over a 7-year period. We train several transformer summarization models to benchmark summarization performance on DebateSum. We also introduce a set of fasttext word-vectors trained on DebateSum called debate2vec. Finally, we present a search engine for this dataset which is utilized extensively by members of the National Speech and Debate Association today. The DebateSum search engine is available to the public here: http://www.debate.cards
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“On the other hand, extractive compression datasets such as SentComp (Filippova and Altun, 2013) and DebateSum (Roush and Balaji, 2020) are usually created for the summarization task and often lack detailed information.”
From LLMLingua-2: Data Distillation for Efficient and Faithful Task-Agnostic Prompt Compression (2024) · cites this paper as Roush and Balaji, 2020
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“The compressed texts provided in their dataset are usually too concise, only maintaining the main idea of the original text and lacking detailed information.”
From LLMLingua-2: Data Distillation for Efficient and Faithful Task-Agnostic Prompt Compression (2024) · cites this paper as Roush and Balaji, 2020
In the citing paper
“Existing extractive compression datasets such as SentComp (Filippova and Altun, 2013) and Debate- Sum (Roush and Balaji, 2020) are mainly created for summarization task.”
From LLMLingua-2: Data Distillation for Efficient and Faithful Task-Agnostic Prompt Compression (2024) · cites this paper as Roush and Balaji, 2020
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.04805 · Cited by 73,173
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 · Cited by 54,325
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Alshomary, M., Düsterhus, N., & Wachsmuth, H. (2020). Extractive Snippet Generation for Arguments. SIGIR 2020 -Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 1969-1972.
- Bar-Haim, R., Eden, L., Friedman, R., Kantor, Y., Lahav, D., & Slonim, N. (2020). From Arguments to Key Points: Towards Automatic Argument Summarization. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4029-4039.
- Baumel, T., Eyal, M., & Elhadad, M. (2018). Query Focused Abstractive Summarization: Incorporating Query Relevance, Multi-Document Coverage, and Summary Length Constraints into seq2seq Models. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.07704 · arXiv
- Beltagy, I., Peters, M. E., & Cohan, A. (2020). Longformer: The Long-Document Transformer. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.05150 · arXiv
- Bojanowski, P., Grave, E., Joulin, A., & Mikolov, T. (2016). Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Information. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5, 135-146. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.04606 · arXiv
- Egan, C., Siddharthan, A., & Wyner, A. (2016). Summarising the points made in online political debates. Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Argument Mining (ArgMining2016), 134-143.
- Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. L. (2015). Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015 -Conference Track Proceedings. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.
- Nema, P., Khapra, M. M., Laha, A., & Ravindran, B. (2017). Diversity driven attention model for query-based abstractive summarization. ACL 2017 -55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference (Long Papers), 1, 1063-1072.
- Sanchan, N., Aker, A., & Bontcheva, K. (2017). Automatic Summarization of Online Debates. Proceedings of the International Conference Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, RANLP 2017, 19-27.
- Wachsmuth, H., Potthast, M., Al Khatib, K., Ajjour, Y., Puschmann, J., Qu, J., … Stein, B. (2018). Building an Argument Search Engine for the Web. Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Argument Mining, 49-59.
- Wang, L., & Ling, W. (2016). Neural Network-Based Abstract Generation for Opinions and Arguments. Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 47-57.
- Xu, Y., & Lapata, M. (2020). Query Focused Multi-Document Summarization with Distant Supervision. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.03027 · arXiv
Cited by
LLMLingua-2: Data Distillation for Efficient and Faithful Task-Agnostic Prompt Compression
Pan, Z., Wu, Q., Jiang, H., Xia, M., Luo, X., Zhang, J., Lin, Q., Rühle, V., Yang, Y., Lin, C.-Y., et al. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.57 · Cited by 58
LLMLingua-2: Data Distillation for Efficient and Faithful Task-Agnostic Prompt Compression
Pan, Z., Wu, Q., Jiang, H., Xia, M., Luo, X., Zhang, J., Lin, Q., Rühle, V., Yang, Y., Lin, C.-Y., et al. (2024) · arXiv · Cited by 2
“On the other hand, extractive compression datasets such as Sent-Comp (Filippova and Altun, 2013) and DebateSum (Roush and Balaji, 2020) are usually created for the summarization task and often lack detailed information.”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Roush, A., & Balaji, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Oregon (US)
- Texas A&M University (US)
- ORCID
- Roush, Allen
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2020
- Pages
- 1-7
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2011.07251
- OpenAlex
- W3104099365
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Text Analysis Techniques
- Keywords
- argument mining, evidence extraction, extractive summarization, FastText word embeddings
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
