Detecting logical fallacies in texts can help users spot argument flaws, but automating this detection is not easy. Manually annotating fallacies in large-scale, real-world text data to create datasets for developing and validating detection models is costly. This paper introduces CoCoLoFa, the largest known logical fallacy dataset, containing 7,706 comments for 648 news articles, with each comment labeled for fallacy presence and type. We recruited 143 crowd workers to write comments embodying specific fallacy types (e.g., slippery slope) in response to news articles. Recognizing the complexity of this writing task, we built an LLM-powered assistant into the workers’ interface to aid in drafting and refining their comments. Experts rated the writing quality and labeling validity of CoCoLoFa as high and reliable. BERT-based models fine-tuned using CoCoLoFa achieved the highest fallacy detection (F1=0.86) and classification (F1=0.87) performance on its test set, outperforming the state-of-the-art LLMs. Our work shows that combining crowdsourcing and LLMs enables us to more effectively construct datasets for complex linguistic phenomena that crowd workers find challenging to produce on their own.

This study investigates learning with disagreement in NLP tasks and evaluates its performance on four datasets. The results suggest that the model performs best on the experimental dataset and faces challenges in minority languages. Furthermore, the analysis indicates that annotator demographics play a significant role in the interpretation of such tasks. This study suggests the need for greater consideration of demographic differences in annotators and more comprehensive evaluation metrics for NLP models.

The bridging research between Human-Computer Interaction and Natural Language Processing is developing quickly these years. However, there is still a lack of formative guidelines to understand the human-machine interaction in the NLP loop. When researchers crossing the two fields talk about humans, they may imply a user or labor. Regarding a human as a user, the human is in control, and the machine is used as a tool to achieve the human’s goals. Considering a human as a laborer, the machine is in control, and the human is used as a resource to achieve the machine’s goals. Through a systematic literature review and thematic analysis, we present an interaction framework for understanding human-machine relationships in NLP. In the framework, we propose four types of human-machine interactions: Human-Teacher and Machine-Learner, Machine-Leading, Human-Leading, and Human-Machine Collaborators. Our analysis shows that the type of interaction is not fixed but can change across tasks as the relationship between the human and the machine develops. We also discuss the implications of this framework for the future of NLP and human-machine relationships.