HFEPX · Eval paper review

Interpretive Variation and Discourse Structure in Detecting Enthymemes in Controversial Political Discourse

Martial Pastor, Nelleke Oostdijk

Published

Oct 22, 2026

Citations

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

35% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Oct 22, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Abstract-only analysis, low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal

Not explicit

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation signal

Detected

Eval setup described

Usefulness for eval research

0/100

Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

Enthymemes are arguments that leave a premise or conclusion unstated, and they are a common persuasion device on social media. Because readers must fill in the missing part themselves, they often disagree on whether a text contains one. This paper asks how to detect and evaluate enthymemes when such disagreement is part of the task. On tweets about vaccination and immigration, each labeled by five annotators, F1 stalls around 0.67 for every fine-tuned model we train, regardless of data size, added features or label type. We therefore ask how these models should be evaluated instead, and propose metrics that compare predictions with the full distribution of annotator votes, together with a model that predicts this distribution directly and captures disagreement better at no cost in F1. We then ask what role discourse structure plays. Models learn to rely on explicit argumentative structure: they reliably recognize tweets without an enthymeme but rarely commit on tweets that contain one. Both the models and a discourse parser miss arguments whose links are left implicit and must be inferred by the reader. Finally, we discuss what these blind spots mean for content moderation systems trained on majority labels.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.