Spain

Sentiment and stance are two important concepts for the analysis of arguments. We propose to add another perspective to the analysis, namely moral sentiment. We argue that moral values are crucial for ideological debates and can thus add useful information for argument mining. In the paper, we present different models for automatically predicting moral sentiment in debates and evaluate them on a manually annotated test set. We then apply our models to investigate how moral values in arguments relate to argument quality, stance, and audience reactions.

COLING 2020

Exploring Morality in Argumentation

stages 

COLING, the International Conference on Computational Linguistics, is one of the premier conferences for natural language processing and computational linguistics. Often grouped within the field of artificial intelligence, but actually pre-dating the development of artificial intelligence, advances in computational linguistics and natural language processing are now some of the major drivers behind the use of artificial intelligence for commercial and social applications – for example, on-line search, machine translation and with voice-assisted conversational devices.

First established in 1965, the biennial COLING conference is held in diverse parts of the globe and attracts participants from both top-ranked research centers and emerging countries. Today, the most important developments in our field are taking place not only in universities and academic research institutes, but also in industrial research departments and in technological startups. COLING conferences provide opportunities for all these communities to showcase their exciting developments.

COLING, the International Conference on Computational Linguistics, is one of the premier conferences for natural language processing and computational linguistics. Often grouped within the field of artificial intelligence, but actually pre-dating the development of artificial intelligence, advances in computational linguistics and natural language processing are now some of the major drivers behind the use of artificial intelligence for commercial and social applications – for example, on-line search, machine translation and with voice-assisted conversational devices.

technical paper

Computational Argumentation in general and Argument Mining in particular are important research fields. In previous works, many of the challenges to automatically extract and to some degree reason over natural language arguments were addressed. The tools to extract argument units are increasingly available and further open problems can be addressed. In this work, we are presenting the task of Aspect-Based Argument Mining (ABAM), with the essential subtasks of Aspect Term Extraction (ATE) and Nested Segmentation (NS). At the first instance, we create and release an annotated corpus with aspect information on the token-level. We consider aspects as the main point(s) argument units are addressing. This information is important for further downstream tasks such as argument ranking, argument summarization and generation, as well as the search for counter-arguments on the aspect-level. We present several experiments using state-of-the-art supervised architectures and demonstrate their performance for both of the subtasks. The annotated benchmark is available at https://github.com/trtm/ABAM.

Aspect-Based Argument Mining

Notwithstanding the increasing role Twitter plays in modern political and social discourse, resources built for conducting argument mining on tweets remain limited. In this paper, we present a new corpus of German tweets annotated for argument components. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first corpus containing not only annotated full tweets but also argumentative spans within tweets. We further report first promising results using supervised classification (F1: 0.82) and sequence labeling (F1: 0.72) approaches.

Annotation and Detection of Arguments in Tweets

In this paper, we publicly release an annotated corpus of 42 decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The corpus is annotated in terms of three types of clauses useful in argument mining: premise, conclusion, and non-argument parts of the text. Furthermore, relationships among the premises and conclusions are mapped. We present baselines for three tasks that lead from unstructured texts to structured arguments. The tasks are argument clause recognition, clause relation prediction, and premise/conclusion recognition. Despite a straightforward application of the bidirectional encoders from Transformers (BERT), we obtained very promising results F1 0.765 on argument recognition, 0.511 on relation prediction, and 0.859/0.628 on premise/conclusion recognition). The results suggest the usefulness of pre-trained language models based on deep neural network architectures in argument mining. Because of the simplicity of the baselines, there is ample space for improvement in future work based on the released corpus.

ECHR: Legal Corpus for Argument Mining

Social bias in language - towards genders, ethnicities, ages, and other social groups - poses a problem with ethical impact for many NLP applications. Recent research has shown that machine learning models trained on respective data may not only adopt, but even amplify the bias. So far, however, little attention has been paid to bias in computational argumentation. In this paper, we study the existence of social biases in large English debate portals. In particular, we train word embedding models on portal-specific corpora and systematically evaluate their bias using WEAT, an existing metric to measure bias in word embeddings. In a word co-occurrence analysis, we then investigate causes of bias. The results suggest that all tested debate corpora contain unbalanced and biased data, mostly in favor of male people with European-American names. Our empirical insights contribute towards an understanding of bias in argumentative data sources.

Argument from Old Man’s View: Assessing Social Bias in Argumentation

Argumentation in an experimental life science paper consists of a main claim being supported with reasoned argumentative steps based on the data garnered from the experiments that were carried out. In this paper we report on an investigation of the large scale argumentation structure found when examining five biochemistry journal publications. One outcome of this investigation of biochemistry articles suggests that argumentation schemes originally designed for genetic research articles may transfer to experimental biomedical literature in general. Our use of these argumentation schemes shows that claims depend not only on experimental data but also on other claims. The tendency for claims to use other claims as their supporting evidence in addition to the experimental data led to two novel models that have provided a better understanding of the large scale argumentation structure of a complete biochemistry paper. First, the claim graph displays the claims within a paper, their interactions, and their evidence. Second, another aspect of this argumentation network is further illustrated by the Model of Informational Hierarchy (MIH) which visualizes at a meta-level the flow of reasoning provided by the authors of the paper and also connects the main claim to the paper's title. Together, these models, which have been produced by a manual examination of the biochemistry articles, would be likely candidates for a computational method that analyzes the large scale argumentation structure.

Use of Claim Graphing and Argumentation Schemes in Biomedical Literature: A Manual Approach to Analysis

This paper presents a small study of annotating argumentation in Swedish social media. Annotators were asked to annotate spans of argumentation in 9 threads from two discussion forums. At the post level, Cohen's kappa and Krippendorff's alpha 0.48 was achieved. When manually inspecting the annotations the annotators seemed to agree when conditions in the guidelines were explicitly met, but implicit argumentation and opinions, resulting in annotators having to interpret what's missing in the text, caused disagreements.

Annotating argumentation in Swedish social media

This talk is about analysing the style of argumentative texts based on rhetorical devices. The talk describes how we developed and evaluated a grammar-based approach for identifying 26 syntax-based devices., and how we employed that approach to distinguish various patterns of style in selected sets of argumentative articles and presidential debates. The patterns reveal several insights into the style used there, while being adequate for integration in text synthesis systems.

Style Analysis of Argumentative Texts by Mining Rhetorical Devices

Computational models of argument quality (AQ) have focused primarily on assessing the overall quality or one specific characteristic of an argument, such as its convincingness or its clarity. However, previous work has claimed that assessment based on theoretical dimensions of argumentation could benefit writers, but developing such models has been limited by the lack of annotated data. In this work, we describe GAQCorpus, the first large, domain-diverse annotated corpus of theory-based AQ. We discuss how we designed the annotation task to reliably collect a large number of judgments with crowdsourcing, formulating theory-based guidelines that helped make subjective judgments of AQ more objective. 
We demonstrate how to identify arguments and adapt the annotation task for three diverse domains. Our work will inform research on theory-based argumentation annotation and enable the creation of more diverse corpora to support computational AQ assessment.

Creating a Domain-diverse Corpus for Theory-based Argument Quality Assessment

The corpus, from which a predictive language model is trained, can be considered the experience of a semantic system. We recorded everyday reading of two participants for two months on a tablet, generating individual corpus samples of 300/500K tokens. Then we trained word2vec models from individual corpora and a 70 million-sentence newspaper corpus to obtain individual and norm-based long-term memory structure. To test whether individual corpora can make better predictions for a cognitive task of long-term memory retrieval, we generated stimulus materials consisting of 134 sentences with uncorrelated individual and norm-based word probabilities. For the subsequent eye tracking study 1-2 months later, our regression analyses revealed that individual, but not norm-corpus-based word probabilities can account for first-fixation duration and first-pass gaze duration. Word length additionally affected gaze duration and total viewing duration. The results suggest that corpora representative for an individual’s long-term memory structure can better explain reading performance than a norm corpus, and that recently acquired information is lexically accessed rapidly.

Individual corpora predict fast memory retrieval during reading

Language users process utterances by segmenting them into many cognitive units, which vary in their sizes and linguistic levels. Although we can do such unitization/segmentation easily, its cognitive mechanism is still not clear. This paper proposes an unsupervised model, Less-is-Better (LiB), to simulate the human cognitive process with respect to language unitization/segmentation. LiB follows the principle of least effort and aims to build a lexicon which minimizes the number of unit tokens (alleviating the effort of analysis) and number of unit types (alleviating the effort of storage) at the same time on any given corpus. LiB's workflow is inspired by empirical cognitive phenomena. The design makes the mechanism of LiB cognitively plausible and the computational requirement light-weight. The lexicon generated by LiB performs the best among different types of lexicons (e.g. ground-truth words) both from an information-theoretical view and a cognitive view, which suggests that the LiB lexicon may be a plausible proxy of the mental lexicon.

Exploring Morality in Argumentation

Downloads

Next from COLING 2020

Aspect-Based Argument Mining

Similar lecture

Annotating topics, stance, argumentativeness and claims in Dutch social media comments: A pilot study

Exploring Morality in Argumentation

.css-70qvj9{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}Downloads

Next from COLING 2020

Aspect-Based Argument Mining

Similar lecture

Annotating topics, stance, argumentativeness and claims in Dutch social media comments: A pilot study

Downloads