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.
Our work is mostly related to the task of detecting agreement and disagreement in online discussions. Recent studies have mainly focused on classifying (dis)agreement in dialogues @cite_17 @cite_19 @cite_4 @cite_14 . In these studies, various features (e.g., structural, linguistic) and or specialised lexicons are proposed to recognise (dis)agreement in different dialogic scenarios. In contrast, we detect stance (dis)agreement between independent utterances where dialogic features are absent.
@cite_19 @cite_14 @cite_4 @cite_17
2161354826 2251911493 2250454469 2060893670
We present Conditional Random Fields based approaches for detecting agreement disagreement between speakers in English broadcast conversation shows. We develop annotation approaches for a variety of linguistic phenomena. Various lexical, structural, durational, and prosodic features are explored. We compare the performance when using features extracted from automatically generated annotations against that when using human annotations. We investigate the efficacy of adding prosodic features on top of lexical, structural, and durational features. Since the training data is highly imbalanced, we explore two sampling approaches, random downsampling and ensemble downsampling. Overall, our approach achieves 79.2 (precision), 50.5 (recall), 61.7 (F1) for agreement detection and 69.2 (precision), 46.9 (recall), and 55.9 (F1) for disagreement detection, on the English broadcast conversation data. Determining when conversational participants agree or disagree is instrumental for broader conversational analysis; it is necessary, for example, in deciding when a group has reached consensus. In this paper, we describe three main contributions. We show how different aspects of conversational structure can be used to detect agreement and disagreement in discussion forums. In particular, we exploit information about meta-thread structure and accommodation between participants. Second, we demonstrate the impact of the features using 3-way classification, including sentences expressing disagreement, agreement or neither. Finally, we show how to use a naturally occurring data set with labels derived from the sides that participants choose in debates on createdebate.com. The resulting new agreement corpus, Agreement by Create Debaters (ABCD) is 25 times larger than any prior corpus. We demonstrate that using this data enables us to outperform the same system trained on prior existing in-domain smaller annotated datasets. We study the problem of agreement and disagreement detection in online discussions. An isotonic Conditional Random Fields (isotonic CRF) based sequential model is proposed to make predictions on sentence- or segment-level. We automatically construct a socially-tuned lexicon that is bootstrapped from existing general-purpose sentiment lexicons to further improve the performance. We evaluate our agreement and disagreement tagging model on two disparate online discussion corpora -- Wikipedia Talk pages and online debates. Our model is shown to outperform the state-of-the-art approaches in both datasets. For example, the isotonic CRF model achieves F1 scores of 0.74 and 0.67 for agreement and disagreement detection, when a linear chain CRF obtains 0.58 and 0.56 for the discussions on Wikipedia Talk pages. This paper presents a system for the automatic detection of agreements in multi-party conversations. We investigate various types of features that are useful for identifying agreements, including lexical, prosodic, and structural features. This system is implemented using supervised machine learning techniques and yields competitive results: Accuracy of 98.1 and a kappa value of 0.4. We also begin to explore the novel task of detecting the addressee of agreements (which speaker is being agreed with). Our system for this task achieves an accuracy of 80.3 , a 56 improvement over the baseline.