Papers › ArgSciChat: A Dataset for Argumentative Dialogues on Scientific Papers
ArgSciChat: A Dataset for Argumentative Dialogues on Scientific Papers
Federico Ruggeri, Mohsen Mesgar, Iryna Gurevych
The applications of conversational agents for scientific disciplines (as expert domains) are understudied due to the lack of dialogue data to train such agents. While most data collection frameworks, such as Amazon Mechanical Turk, foster data collection for generic domains by connecting crowd workers and task designers, these frameworks are not much optimized for data collection in expert domains. Scientists are rarely present in these frameworks due to their limited time budget. Therefore, we introduce a novel framework to collect dialogues between scientists as domain experts on scientific papers. Our framework lets scientists present their scientific papers as groundings for dialogues and participate in dialogue they like its paper title. We use our framework to collect a novel argumentative dialogue dataset, ArgSciChat. It consists of 498 messages collected from 41 dialogues on 20 scientific papers. Alongside extensive analysis on ArgSciChat, we evaluate a recent conversational agent on our dataset. Experimental results show that this agent poorly performs on ArgSciChat, motivating further research on argumentative scientific agents. We release our framework and the dataset.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Datasets
Introduced by this paper, per the archive.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections