Towards Full-Fledged Argument Search: A Framework for Extracting and Clustering Arguments from Unstructured Text

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2112.00160v1
• Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 23:05:05 GMT
• Title: Towards Full-Fledged Argument Search: A Framework for Extracting and Clustering Arguments from Unstructured Text
• Authors: Michael F\"arber, Anna Steyer
• Abstract summary: Argument search aims at identifying arguments in natural language texts. Existing frameworks address only specific components of argument search. We propose a framework for addressing these shortcomings.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Argument search aims at identifying arguments in natural language texts. In the past, this task has been addressed by a combination of keyword search and argument identification on the sentence- or document-level. However, existing frameworks often address only specific components of argument search and do not address the following aspects: (1) argument-query matching: identifying arguments that frame the topic slightly differently than the actual search query; (2) argument identification: identifying arguments that consist of multiple sentences; (3) argument clustering: selecting retrieved arguments by topical aspects. In this paper, we propose a framework for addressing these shortcomings. We suggest (1) to combine the keyword search with precomputed topic clusters for argument-query matching, (2) to apply a novel approach based on sentence-level sequence-labeling for argument identification, and (3) to present aggregated arguments to users based on topic-aware argument clustering. Our experiments on several real-world debate data sets demonstrate that density-based clustering algorithms, such as HDBSCAN, are particularly suitable for argument-query matching. With our sentence-level, BiLSTM-based sequence-labeling approach we achieve a macro F1 score of 0.71. Finally, evaluating our argument clustering method indicates that a fine-grained clustering of arguments by subtopics remains challenging but is worthwhile to be explored.

Related papers

• Exploring Key Point Analysis with Pairwise Generation and Graph Partitioning [61.73411954056032]
  Key Point Analysis (KPA) continues to be a significant and unresolved issue within the field of argument mining. We propose a novel approach for KPA with pairwise generation and graph partitioning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-17T13:44:29Z)
• An Extension-based Approach for Computing and Verifying Preferences in Abstract Argumentation [1.7065454553786665]
  We present an extension-based approach for computing and verifying preferences in an abstract argumentation system. We show that the complexity of computing sets of preferences is exponential in the number of arguments. We present novel algorithms for verifying (i.e., assessing) the computed preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-26T12:36:11Z)
• 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)
• Ranking-based Argumentation Semantics Applied to Logical Argumentation (full version) [2.9005223064604078]
  We investigate the behaviour of ranking-based semantics for structured argumentation. We show that a wide class of ranking-based semantics gives rise to so-called culpability measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-31T15:44:33Z)
• On resolving conflicts between arguments [0.0]
  In legal argumentation, meta-rules determine the valid arguments by considering the last defeasible rule of each argument involved in a conflict. We propose a new argument system where, instead of deriving a defeat relation between arguments, emphundercutting-arguments for the defeat of defeasible rules are constructed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-20T16:31:19Z)
• RuArg-2022: Argument Mining Evaluation [69.87149207721035]
  This paper is a report of the organizers on the first competition of argumentation analysis systems dealing with Russian language texts. A corpus containing 9,550 sentences (comments on social media posts) on three topics related to the COVID-19 pandemic was prepared. The system that won the first place in both tasks used the NLI (Natural Language Inference) variant of the BERT architecture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-18T17:13:37Z)
• 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)
• "Sharks are not the threat humans are": Argument Component Segmentation in School Student Essays [3.632177840361928]
  We apply a token-level classification to identify claim and premise tokens from a new corpus of argumentative essays written by middle school students. We demonstrate that a BERT-based multi-task learning architecture (i.e., token and sentence level classification) adaptively pretrained on a relevant unlabeled dataset obtains the best results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-08T02:40:07Z)
• 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)
• Same Side Stance Classification Task: Facilitating Argument Stance Classification by Fine-tuning a BERT Model [8.8896707993459]
  The same side stance classification task provides a dataset of argument pairs classified by whether or not both arguments share the same stance. We fine-tuned a pre-trained BERT model for three epochs and used the first 512 tokens of each argument to predict if two arguments share the same stance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-23T13:54:31Z)

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.