AMPERSAND: Argument Mining for PERSuAsive oNline Discussions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.14677v1
• Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:33:40 GMT
• Title: AMPERSAND: Argument Mining for PERSuAsive oNline Discussions
• Authors: Tuhin Chakrabarty, Christopher Hidey, Smaranda Muresan, Kathy Mckeown, Alyssa Hwang
• Abstract summary: We propose a computational model for argument mining in online persuasive discussion forums. Our approach relies on identifying relations between components of arguments in a discussion thread. Our models obtain significant improvements compared to recent state-of-the-art approaches.
• Score: 41.06165177604387
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Argumentation is a type of discourse where speakers try to persuade their audience about the reasonableness of a claim by presenting supportive arguments. Most work in argument mining has focused on modeling arguments in monologues. We propose a computational model for argument mining in online persuasive discussion forums that brings together the micro-level (argument as product) and macro-level (argument as process) models of argumentation. Fundamentally, this approach relies on identifying relations between components of arguments in a discussion thread. Our approach for relation prediction uses contextual information in terms of fine-tuning a pre-trained language model and leveraging discourse relations based on Rhetorical Structure Theory. We additionally propose a candidate selection method to automatically predict what parts of one's argument will be targeted by other participants in the discussion. Our models obtain significant improvements compared to recent state-of-the-art approaches using pointer networks and a pre-trained language model.

Related papers

• "Let's Argue Both Sides": Argument Generation Can Force Small Models to Utilize Previously Inaccessible Reasoning Capabilities [0.8999666725996974]
  We propose Argument Generation as a method of forcing models to utilize their reasoning capabilities. Our method involves the generation of arguments for each possible inference result, and asking the end model to rank the generated arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T19:49:30Z)
• Argue with Me Tersely: Towards Sentence-Level Counter-Argument Generation [62.069374456021016]
  We present the ArgTersely benchmark for sentence-level counter-argument generation. We also propose Arg-LlaMA for generating high-quality counter-argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-21T06:51:34Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [50.69905074548764]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way. Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• Automatic Debate Evaluation with Argumentation Semantics and Natural Language Argument Graph Networks [2.4861619769660637]
  We propose an original hybrid method to automatically evaluate argumentative debates. For that purpose, we combine concepts from argumentation theory with Transformer-based architectures and neural graph networks. We obtain promising results that lay the basis on an unexplored new instance of the automatic analysis of natural language arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-28T11:09:07Z)
• Reinforcement Learning-based Dialogue Guided Event Extraction to Exploit Argument Relations [70.35379323231241]
  This paper presents a better approach for event extraction by explicitly utilizing the relationships of event arguments. We employ reinforcement learning and incremental learning to extract multiple arguments via a multi-turned, iterative process. Experimental results show that our approach consistently outperforms seven state-of-the-art event extraction methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-23T13:24:39Z)
• Exploring Discourse Structures for Argument Impact Classification [48.909640432326654]
  This paper empirically shows that the discourse relations between two arguments along the context path are essential factors for identifying the persuasive power of an argument. We propose DisCOC to inject and fuse the sentence-level structural information with contextualized features derived from large-scale language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T06:49:19Z)
• Exploring the Role of Argument Structure in Online Debate Persuasion [39.74040217761505]
  We investigate the role of discourse structure of the arguments from online debates in their persuasiveness. We find that argument structure features play an essential role in achieving the better predictive performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-07T17:34:50Z)
• Extracting Implicitly Asserted Propositions in Argumentation [8.20413690846954]
  We study methods for extracting propositions implicitly asserted in questions, reported speech, and imperatives in argumentation. Our study may inform future research on argument mining and the semantics of these rhetorical devices in argumentation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T12:03:47Z)
• Aspect-Controlled Neural Argument Generation [65.91772010586605]
  We train a language model for argument generation that can be controlled on a fine-grained level to generate sentence-level arguments for a given topic, stance, and aspect. Our evaluation shows that our generation model is able to generate high-quality, aspect-specific arguments. These arguments can be used to improve the performance of stance detection models via data augmentation and to generate counter-arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-30T20:17:22Z)
• The Role of Pragmatic and Discourse Context in Determining Argument Impact [39.70446357000737]
  This paper presents a new dataset to initiate the study of this aspect of argumentation. It consists of a diverse collection of arguments covering 741 controversial topics and comprising over 47,000 claims. We propose predictive models that incorporate the pragmatic and discourse context of argumentative claims and show that they outperform models that rely on claim-specific linguistic features for predicting the perceived impact of individual claims within a particular line of argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-06T23:00:37Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.