Topic Ontologies for Arguments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.09759v1
• Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 23:43:24 GMT
• Title: Topic Ontologies for Arguments
• Authors: Yamen Ajjour, Johannes Kiesel, Benno Stein, and Martin Potthast
• Abstract summary: This paper contributes the first comprehensive survey of topic coverage, assessing 45 argument corpora. Comparing the topic sets between the authoritative sources and corpora, our analysis shows that the corpora topics are covered well by the sources. Other topics from the sources are less extensively covered by the corpora of today, revealing interesting future directions for corpus construction.
• Score: 26.87435881466599
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Many computational argumentation tasks, like stance classification, are topic-dependent: the effectiveness of approaches to these tasks significantly depends on whether the approaches were trained on arguments from the same topics as those they are tested on. So, which are these topics that researchers train approaches on? This paper contributes the first comprehensive survey of topic coverage, assessing 45 argument corpora. For the assessment, we take the first step towards building an argument topic ontology, consulting three diverse authoritative sources: the World Economic Forum, the Wikipedia list of controversial topics, and Debatepedia. Comparing the topic sets between the authoritative sources and corpora, our analysis shows that the corpora topics-which are mostly those frequently discussed in public online fora - are covered well by the sources. However, other topics from the sources are less extensively covered by the corpora of today, revealing interesting future directions for corpus construction.

Related papers

• The Dual-Edged Sword of Technical Debt: Benefits and Issues Analyzed Through Developer Discussions [8.304493605883744]
  Technical debt (TD) has long been one of the key factors influencing the maintainability of software products. This work is to collectively investigate the practitioners' opinions on the various perspectives of TD from a large collection of articles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-30T17:54:36Z)
• Overview of PerpectiveArg2024: The First Shared Task on Perspective Argument Retrieval [56.66761232081188]
  We present a novel dataset covering demographic and socio-cultural (socio) variables, such as age, gender, and political attitude, representing minority and majority groups in society. We find substantial challenges in incorporating perspectivism, especially when aiming for personalization based solely on the text of arguments without explicitly providing socio profiles. While we bootstrap perspective argument retrieval, further research is essential to optimize retrieval systems to facilitate personalization and reduce polarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T03:14:57Z)
• The Odyssey of Commonsense Causality: From Foundational Benchmarks to Cutting-Edge Reasoning [70.16523526957162]
  Understanding commonsense causality helps people understand the principles of the real world better. Despite its significance, a systematic exploration of this topic is notably lacking. Our work aims to provide a systematic overview, update scholars on recent advancements, and provide a pragmatic guide for beginners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-27T16:30:50Z)
• Towards Corpus-Scale Discovery of Selection Biases in News Coverage: Comparing What Sources Say About Entities as a Start [65.28355014154549]
  This paper investigates the challenges of building scalable NLP systems for discovering patterns of media selection biases directly from news content in massive-scale news corpora. We show the capabilities of the framework through a case study on NELA-2020, a corpus of 1.8M news articles in English from 519 news sources worldwide.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-06T23:36:45Z)
• Twitter Topic Classification [15.306383757213956]
  We present a new task based on tweet topic classification and release two associated datasets. Given a wide range of topics covering the most important discussion points in social media, we provide training and testing data. We perform a quantitative evaluation and analysis of current general- and domain-specific language models on the task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-20T16:13:52Z)
• Persua: A Visual Interactive System to Enhance the Persuasiveness of Arguments in Online Discussion [52.49981085431061]
  Enhancing people's ability to write persuasive arguments could contribute to the effectiveness and civility in online communication. We derived four design goals for a tool that helps users improve the persuasiveness of arguments in online discussions. Persua is an interactive visual system that provides example-based guidance on persuasive strategies to enhance the persuasiveness of arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-16T08:07:53Z)
• MultiOpEd: A Corpus of Multi-Perspective News Editorials [46.86995662807853]
  MultiOpEd is an open-domain news editorial corpus that supports various tasks pertaining to the argumentation structure in news editorials. We study the problem of perspective summarization in a multi-task learning setting, as a case study. We show that, with the induced tasks as auxiliary tasks, we can improve the quality of the perspective summary generated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-04T21:23:22Z)
• 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)
• Argument Mining Driven Analysis of Peer-Reviews [4.552676857046446]
  We propose an Argument Mining based approach for the assistance of editors, meta-reviewers, and reviewers. One of our findings is that arguments used in the peer-review process differ from arguments in other domains making the transfer of pre-trained models difficult. We provide the community with a new peer-review dataset from different computer science conferences with annotated arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-10T16:06:21Z)
• How do academic topics shift across altmetric sources? A case study of the research area of Big Data [2.208242292882514]
  Author keywords from publications and terms from online events are extracted as the main topics of the publications and the online discussion of their audiences at Altmetric. Results show there are substantial differences between the two sets of topics around Big Data scientific research. Blogs and News show a strong similarity in the terms commonly used, while Policy documents and Wikipedia articles exhibit the strongest dissimilarity in considering and interpreting Big Data related research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-23T19:37:36Z)
• What Changed Your Mind: The Roles of Dynamic Topics and Discourse in Argumentation Process [78.4766663287415]
  This paper presents a study that automatically analyzes the key factors in argument persuasiveness. We propose a novel neural model that is able to track the changes of latent topics and discourse in argumentative conversations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-10T04:27:48Z)

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.