PAKT: Perspectivized Argumentation Knowledge Graph and Tool for Deliberation Analysis (with Supplementary Materials)

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.10570v1
• Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:47:19 GMT
• Title: PAKT: Perspectivized Argumentation Knowledge Graph and Tool for Deliberation Analysis (with Supplementary Materials)
• Authors: Moritz Plenz, Philipp Heinisch, Anette Frank, Philipp Cimiano,
• Abstract summary: We propose PAKT, a Perspectivized Argumentation Knowledge Graph and Tool. The graph structures the argumentative space across diverse topics, where arguments are divided into premises and conclusions. We show how to construct PAKT and conduct case studies on the obtained multifaceted argumentation graph.
• Score: 18.436817251174357
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Deliberative processes play a vital role in shaping opinions, decisions and policies in our society. In contrast to persuasive debates, deliberation aims to foster understanding of conflicting perspectives among interested parties. The exchange of arguments in deliberation serves to elucidate viewpoints, to raise awareness of conflicting interests, and to finally converge on a resolution. To better understand and analyze the underlying processes of deliberation, we propose PAKT, a Perspectivized Argumentation Knowledge Graph and Tool. The graph structures the argumentative space across diverse topics, where arguments i) are divided into premises and conclusions, ii) are annotated for stances, framings and their underlying values and iii) are connected to background knowledge. We show how to construct PAKT and conduct case studies on the obtained multifaceted argumentation graph. Our findings show the analytical potential offered by our framework, highlighting the capability to go beyond individual arguments and to reveal structural patterns in the way participants and stakeholders argue in a debate. The overarching goal of our work is to facilitate constructive discourse and informed decision making as a special form of argumentation. We offer public access to PAKT and its rich capabilities to support analytics, visualizaton, navigation and efficient search, for diverse forms of argumentation.

Related papers

• An Empirical Analysis of Diversity in Argument Summarization [4.128725138940779]
  We introduce three aspects of diversity: those of opinions, annotators, and sources. We evaluate approaches to a popular argument summarization task called Key Point Analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T16:26:52Z)
• From Heuristic to Analytic: Cognitively Motivated Strategies for Coherent Physical Commonsense Reasoning [66.98861219674039]
  Heuristic-Analytic Reasoning (HAR) strategies drastically improve the coherence of rationalizations for model decisions. Our findings suggest that human-like reasoning strategies can effectively improve the coherence and reliability of PLM reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T19:46:04Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Towards Understanding Persuasion in Computational Argumentation [10.089382889894246]
  Opinion formation and persuasion in argumentation are affected by three major factors: the argument itself, the source of the argument, and the properties of the audience. This thesis makes several contributions to understand the relative effect of the source, audience, and language in computational persuasion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-03T19:36:21Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Helping users discover perspectives: Enhancing opinion mining with joint topic models [5.2424255020469595]
  This paper explores how opinion mining can be enhanced with joint topic modeling. We evaluate four joint topic models (TAM, JST, VODUM, and LAM) in a user study assessing human understandability of the extracted perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-23T16:13:06Z)
• 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)
• 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.