We identify agreement and disagreement between utterances that express stances towards a topic of discussion. Existing methods focus mainly on conversational settings, where dialogic features are used for (dis)agreement inference. We extend this scope and seek to detect stance (dis)agreement in a broader setting, where independent stance-bearing utterances, which prevail in many stance corpora and real-world scenarios, are compared. To cope with such non-dialogic utterances, we find that the reasons uttered to back up a specific stance can help predict stance (dis)agreements. We propose a reason comparing network (RCN) to leverage reason information for stance comparison. Empirical results on a well-known stance corpus show that our method can discover useful reason information, enabling it to outperform several baselines in stance (dis)agreement detection.
Reason information has been found useful in argumentation mining @cite_13 , where studies leverage stance and reason signals for various argumentation tasks @cite_5 @cite_18 @cite_2 . We study how to exploit the reason information to better understand the stance, thus addressing a different task.
@cite_5 @cite_18 @cite_13 @cite_2
2250730878 2251478708 2251661596 2236647290
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. Argument mining studies in natural language text often use lexical (e.g. n-grams) and syntactic (e.g. grammatical production rules) features with all possible values. In prior work on a corpus of academic essays, we demonstrated that such large and sparse feature spaces can cause difficulty for feature selection and proposed a method to design a more compact feature space. The proposed feature design is based on post-processing a topic model to extract argument and domain words. In this paper we investigate the generality of this approach, by applying our methodology to a new corpus of persuasive essays. Our experiments show that replacing n-grams and syntactic rules with features and constraints using extracted argument and domain words significantly improves argument mining performance for persuasive essays. We introduce a new approach to argumentation mining that we applied to a parallel German English corpus of short texts annotated with argumentation structure. We focus on structure prediction, which we break into a number of subtasks: relation identification, central claim identification, role classification, and function classification. Our new model jointly predicts different aspects of the structure by combining the different subtask predictions in the edge weights of an evidence graph; we then apply a standard MST decoding algorithm. This model not only outperforms two reasonable baselines and two datadriven models of global argument structure for the difficult subtask of relation identification, but also improves the results for central claim identification and function classification and it compares favorably to a complex mstparser pipeline. The goal of argumentation mining, an evolving research field in computational linguistics, is to design methods capable of analyzing people's argumentation. In this article, we go beyond the state of the art in several ways. i We deal with actual Web data and take up the challenges given by the variety of registers, multiple domains, and unrestricted noisy user-generated Web discourse. ii We bridge the gap between normative argumentation theories and argumentation phenomena encountered in actual data by adapting an argumentation model tested in an extensive annotation study. iii We create a new gold standard corpus 90k tokens in 340 documents and experiment with several machine learning methods to identify argument components. We offer the data, source codes, and annotation guidelines to the community under free licenses. Our findings show that argumentation mining in user-generated Web discourse is a feasible but challenging task.