In this paper, we compose a new task for deep argumentative structure analysis that goes beyond shallow discourse structure analysis. The idea is that argumentative relations can reasonably be represented with a small set of predefined patterns. For example, using value judgment and bipolar causality, we can explain a support relation between two argumentative segments as follows: Segment 1 states that something is good, and Segment 2 states that it is good because it promotes something good when it happens. We are motivated by the following questions: (i) how do we formulate the task?, (ii) can a reasonable pattern set be created?, and (iii) do the patterns work? To examine the task feasibility, we conduct a three-stage, detailed annotation study using 357 argumentative relations from the argumentative microtext corpus, a small, but highly reliable corpus. We report the coverage of explanations captured by our patterns on a test set composed of 270 relations. Our coverage result of 74.6 indicates that argumentative relations can reasonably be explained by our small pattern set. Our agreement result of 85.9 shows that a reasonable inter-annotator agreement can be achieved. To assist with future work in computational argumentation, the annotated corpus is made publicly available.
One may think that stance classification is closely related to our task in terms that identifying the stance of a debate participant towards a discussion topic at a document or sentence level, and several corpora have been created for the task [etc.] Hasan2014,Persing2016 . However, since this direction of research focuses only on the classification of the stance polarity of a given paragraph or sentence, generating the explanation between two argumentative components has been out of scope. Several argumentative corpora have been created for argumentation mining fields such as argument component identification, argument component classification, and structure identification @cite_10 @cite_12 @cite_9 , but none of them are like our current task setting. annotated AraucariaDB corpus @cite_1 with Walton's Argumentation Scheme, and the successive work @cite_16 creates a machine learning-model to classify an argument into five sets of schemes. However, they do not annotate instantiations of variables in Argumentation Scheme, and do not report the inter-annotator agreement. @cite_14 conducted preliminary work on identifying a set of argumentation schemes used in scientific articles based on Argumentation Scheme. However, they do not actually create a corpus.
@cite_14 @cite_9 @cite_1 @cite_16 @cite_10 @cite_12
2250730878 1854537555 2562522356 2518510348
Argumentation mining and stance classification were recently introduced as interesting tasks in text mining. In this paper, a novel framework for argument tagging based on topic modeling is proposed. Unlike other machine learning approaches for argument tagging which often require large set of labeled data, the proposed model is minimally supervised and merely a one-to-one mapping between the pre-defined argument set and the extracted topics is required. These extracted arguments are subsequently exploited for stance classification. Additionally, a manuallyannotated corpus for stance classification and argument tagging of online news comments is introduced and made available. Experiments on our collected corpus demonstrate the benefits of using topic-modeling for argument tagging. We show that using Non-Negative Matrix Factorization instead of Latent Dirichlet Allocation achieves better results for argument classification, close to the results of a supervised classifier. Furthermore, the statistical model that leverages automatically-extracted arguments as features for stance classification shows promising results. We present a new approach to the automated classification of document-level argument stance, a relatively under-researched sub-task of Sentiment Analysis. In place of the noisy online debate data currently used in stance classification research, a corpus of student essays annotated for essay-level stance is constructed for use in a series of classification experiments. A novel set of features designed to capture the stance, stance targets, and topical relationships between the essay prompt and the student's essay is described. Models trained on this feature set showed significant increases in accuracy relative to two high baselines. This article tackles a new challenging task in computational argumentation. Given a pair of two arguments to a certain controversial topic, we aim to directly assess qualitative properties of the arguments in order to explain why one argument is more convincing than the other one. We approach this task in a fully empirical manner by annotating 26k explanations written in natural language. These explanations describe convincingness of arguments in the given argument pair, such as their strengths or flaws. We create a new crowd-sourced corpus containing 9,111 argument pairs, multi-labeled with 17 classes, which was cleaned and curated by employing several strict quality measures. We propose two tasks on this data set, namely (1) predicting the full label distribution and (2) classifying types of flaws in less convincing arguments. Our experiments with feature-rich SVM learners and Bidirectional LSTM neural networks with convolution and attention mechanism reveal that such a novel fine-grained analysis of Web argument convincingness is a very challenging task. We release the new UKPConvArg2 corpus and software under permissive licenses to the research community. We propose a new task in the field of computational argumentation in which we investigate qualitative properties of Web arguments, namely their convincingness. We cast the problem as relation classification, where a pair of arguments having the same stance to the same prompt is judged. We annotate a large datasets of 16k pairs of arguments over 32 topics and investigate whether the relation “A is more convincing than B” exhibits properties of total ordering; these findings are used as global constraints for cleaning the crowdsourced data. We propose two tasks: (1) predicting which argument from an argument pair is more convincing and (2) ranking all arguments to the topic based on their convincingness. We experiment with feature-rich SVM and bidirectional LSTM and obtain 0.76-0.78 accuracy and 0.35-0.40 Spearman’s correlation in a cross-topic evaluation. We release the newly created corpus UKPConvArg1 and the experimental software under open licenses.