For argumentation mining, there are several sub-tasks such as argumentation component type classification, relation classification. Existing research tends to solve such sub-tasks separately, but ignore the close relation between them. In this paper, we present a joint framework incorporating logical relation between sub-tasks to improve the performance of argumentation structure generation. We design an objective function to combine the predictions from individual models for each sub-task and solve the problem with some constraints constructed from background knowledge. We evaluate our proposed model on two public corpora and the experiment results show that our model can outperform the baseline that uses a separate model significantly for each sub-task. Our model also shows advantages on component-related sub-tasks compared to a state-of-the-art joint model based on the evidence graph.
Previous research on argumentation mining focuses on several sub-tasks, including (1) splitting text into discourse units (DU) @cite_16 @cite_5 , (2) identification of ADUs from non-argumentative ones @cite_10 @cite_1 , (3) identification of ADU types @cite_4 @cite_17 @cite_8 @cite_11 and (4) identification of relation between ADUs @cite_14 @cite_6 @cite_15 @cite_13 . We will concentrate on the latter two sub-tasks in this part and introduce some existing joint models.
@cite_13 @cite_11 @cite_4 @cite_14 @cite_8 @cite_1 @cite_6 @cite_5 @cite_15 @cite_16 @cite_10 @cite_17
2251661596 2236647290 2250730878 2251478708
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. 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.