Exploring Discourse Structures for Argument Impact Classification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2106.00976v1
• Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 06:49:19 GMT
• Title: Exploring Discourse Structures for Argument Impact Classification
• Authors: Xin Liu, Jiefu Ou, Yangqiu Song, Xin Jiang
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 48.909640432326654
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Discourse relations among arguments reveal logical structures of a debate conversation. However, no prior work has explicitly studied how the sequence of discourse relations influence a claim's impact. 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 further propose DisCOC to inject and fuse the sentence-level structural discourse information with contextualized features derived from large-scale language models. Experimental results and extensive analysis show that the attention and gate mechanisms that explicitly model contexts and texts can indeed help the argument impact classification task defined by Durmus et al. (2019), and discourse structures among the context path of the claim to be classified can further boost the performance.

Related papers

• End-to-End Argument Mining over Varying Rhetorical Structures [5.439020425819001]
  Rhetorical Structure Theory implies no single discourse interpretation of a text. Same argumentative structure can be found in semantically similar texts with varying rhetorical structures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-20T12:00:40Z)
• 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)
• Argument Attribution Explanations in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (Technical Report) [17.9926469947157]
  We propose a novel theory of Argument Explanations (AAEs) by incorporating the spirit of feature attribution from machine learning. AAEs are used to determine the influence of arguments towards topic arguments of interest. We study desirable properties of AAEs, including some new ones and some partially adapted from the literature to our setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-25T15:36:33Z)
• Modeling Hierarchical Reasoning Chains by Linking Discourse Units and Key Phrases for Reading Comprehension [80.99865844249106]
  We propose a holistic graph network (HGN) which deals with context at both discourse level and word level, as the basis for logical reasoning. Specifically, node-level and type-level relations, which can be interpreted as bridges in the reasoning process, are modeled by a hierarchical interaction mechanism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-21T07:34:27Z)
• DiPlomat: A Dialogue Dataset for Situated Pragmatic Reasoning [89.92601337474954]
  Pragmatic reasoning plays a pivotal role in deciphering implicit meanings that frequently arise in real-life conversations. We introduce a novel challenge, DiPlomat, aiming at benchmarking machines' capabilities on pragmatic reasoning and situated conversational understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T10:41:23Z)
• Uncovering the Potential of ChatGPT for Discourse Analysis in Dialogue: An Empirical Study [51.079100495163736]
  This paper systematically inspects ChatGPT's performance in two discourse analysis tasks: topic segmentation and discourse parsing. ChatGPT demonstrates proficiency in identifying topic structures in general-domain conversations yet struggles considerably in specific-domain conversations. Our deeper investigation indicates that ChatGPT can give more reasonable topic structures than human annotations but only linearly parses the hierarchical rhetorical structures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-15T07:14:41Z)
• Integrating Temporality and Causality into Acyclic Argumentation Frameworks using a Transition System [0.5420492913071214]
  We propose a formal method to rewrite the concepts of acyclic abstract argumentation frameworks into an action language. We establish causal relationships between the enunciation of arguments and their consequences, whether direct or indirect. An Answer Set Programming implementation is also proposed, as well as perspectives towards explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-16T10:13:47Z)
• Who Responded to Whom: The Joint Effects of Latent Topics and Discourse in Conversation Structure [53.77234444565652]
  We identify the responding relations in the conversation discourse, which link response utterances to their initiations. We propose a model to learn latent topics and discourse in word distributions, and predict pairwise initiation-response links. Experimental results on both English and Chinese conversations show that our model significantly outperforms the previous state of the arts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-17T17:46:00Z)
• The Unfolding Structure of Arguments in Online Debates: The case of a No-Deal Brexit [0.0]
  We propose a five-step methodology to extract, categorize and explore the latent argumentation structures of online debates. Using Twitter data about a "no-deal" Brexit, we focus on the expected effects in case of materialisation of this event. Results show that the proposed methodology can be employed to perform a statistical rhetorics analysis of debates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-09T12:29:43Z)
• 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.