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
2250653239 2250287365 2251663606 2251314334 2250309026 2251661596 2154976315 1977155386 2251478708
Analyzing arguments in user-generated Web discourse has recently gained attention in argumentation mining, an evolving field of NLP. Current approaches, which employ fully-supervised machine learning, are usually domain dependent and suffer from the lack of large and diverse annotated corpora. However, annotating arguments in discourse is costly, error-prone, and highly context-dependent. We asked whether leveraging unlabeled data in a semi-supervised manner can boost the performance of argument component identification and to which extent is the approach independent of domain and register. We propose novel features that exploit clustering of unlabeled data from debate portals based on a word embeddings representation. Using these features, we significantly outperform several baselines in the cross-validation, cross-domain, and cross-register evaluation scenarios. The ability to analyze the adequacy of supporting information is necessary for determining the strength of an argument.1 This is especially the case for online user comments, which often consist of arguments lacking proper substantiation and reasoning. Thus, we develop a framework for automatically classifying each proposition as UNVERIFIABLE, VERIFIABLE NONEXPERIENTIAL, or VERIFIABLE EXPERIENTIAL2, where the appropriate type of support is reason, evidence, and optional evidence, respectively3. Once the existing support for propositions are identified, this classification can provide an estimate of how adequately the arguments have been supported. We build a goldstandard dataset of 9,476 sentences and clauses from 1,047 comments submitted to an eRulemaking platform and find that Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifiers trained with n-grams and additional features capturing the verifiability and experientiality exhibit statistically significant improvement over the unigram baseline, achieving a macro-averaged F1 of 68.99 . This paper presents a study on the role of discourse markers in argumentative discourse. We annotated a German corpus with arguments according to the common claim-premise model of argumentation and performed various statistical analyses regarding the discriminative nature of discourse markers for claims and premises. Our experiments show that particular semantic groups of discourse markers are indicative of either claims or premises and constitute highly predictive features for discriminating between them. In this paper we describe an application of language technology to policy formulation, where it can support policy makers assess the acceptance of a yet-unpublished policy before the policy enters public consultation. One of the key concepts is that instead of relying on thematic similarity, we extract arguments expressed in support or opposition of positions that are general statements that are, themselves, consistent with the policy or not. The focus of this paper in this overall pipeline, is identifying arguments in text: we present and empirically evaluate the hypothesis that verbal tense and mood are good indicators of arguments that have not been explored in the relevant literature. In this paper, we present a novel approach for identifying argumentative discourse structures in persuasive essays. The structure of argumentation consists of several components (i.e. claims and premises) that are connected with argumentative relations. We consider this task in two consecutive steps. First, we identify the components of arguments using multiclass classification. Second, we classify a pair of argument components as either support or non-support for identifying the structure of argumentative discourse. For both tasks, we evaluate several classifiers and propose novel feature sets including structural, lexical, syntactic and contextual features. In our experiments, we obtain a macro F1-score of 0.726 for identifying argument components and 0.722 for argumentative relations. 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. Argumentative discourse contains not only language expressing claims and evidence, but also language used to organize these claims and pieces of evidence. Differentiating between the two may be useful for many applications, such as those that focus on the content (e.g., relation extraction) of arguments and those that focus on the structure of arguments (e.g., automated essay scoring). We propose an automated approach to detecting high-level organizational elements in argumentative discourse that combines a rule-based system and a probabilistic sequence model in a principled manner. We present quantitative results on a dataset of human-annotated persuasive essays, and qualitative analyses of performance on essays and on political debates. This paper provides the results of experiments on the detection of arguments in texts among which are legal texts. The detection is seen as a classification problem. A classifier is trained on a set of annotated arguments. Different feature sets are evaluated involving lexical, syntactic, semantic and discourse properties of the texts. The experiments are a first step in the context of automatically classifying arguments in legal texts according to their rhetorical type and their visualization for convenient access and search. 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.