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.
This paper presents preliminary work on identification of argumentation schemes, i.e., identifying premises, conclusion and name of argumentation scheme, in arguments for scientific claims in genetics research articles. The goal is to develop annotation guidelines for creating corpora for argumentation mining research. This paper gives the specification of ten semantically distinct argumentation schemes based on analysis of argumentation in several journal articles. In addition, it presents an empirical study on readers’ ability to recognize some of the argumentation schemes. In this paper, we present a novel approach to model arguments, their components and relations in persuasive essays in English. We propose an annotation scheme that includes the annotation of claims and premises as well as support and attack relations for capturing the structure of argumentative discourse. We further conduct a manual annotation study with three annotators on 90 persuasive essays. The obtained inter-rater agreement of αU =0 .72 for argument components and α =0 .81 for argumentative relations indicates that the proposed annotation scheme successfully guides annotators to substantial agreement. The final corpus and the annotation guidelines are freely available to encourage future research in argument recognition.  Argumentation schemes are structures or templates for various kinds of arguments. Given the text of an argument with premises and conclusion identified, we classify it as an instance of one of five common schemes, using features specific to each scheme. We achieve accuracies of 63--91 in one-against-others classification and 80--94 in pairwise classification (baseline = 50 in both cases). This paper describes the development of a written corpus of argumentative reasoning. Arguments in the corpus have been analysed using state of the art techniques from argumentation theory and have been marked up using an open, reusable markup language. A number of the key challenges enountered during the process are explored, and preliminary observations about features such as intercoder reliability and corpus statistics are discussed. In addition, several examples are offered of how this kind of language resource can be used in linguistic, computational and philosophical research, and in particular, how the corpus has been used to initiate a programme investigating the automatic detection of argumentative srtucture. Engaging in a debate with oneself or others to take decisions is an integral part of our day-today life. A debate on a topic (say, use of performance enhancing drugs) typically proceeds by one party making an assertion claim (say, PEDs are bad for health) and then providing an evidence to support the claim (say, a 2006 study shows that PEDs have psychiatric side effects). In this work, we propose the task of automatically detecting such evidences from unstructured text that support a given claim. This task has many practical applications in decision support and persuasion enhancement in a wide range of domains. We first introduce an extensive benchmark data set tailored for this task, which allows training statistical models and assessing their performance. Then, we suggest a system architecture based on supervised learning to address the evidence detection task. Finally, promising experimental results are reported.