In this paper, we compose a new task for deep argumentative structure analysis that goes beyond shallow discourse structure analysis. The idea is that argumentative relations can reasonably be represented with a small set of predefined patterns. For example, using value judgment and bipolar causality, we can explain a support relation between two argumentative segments as follows: Segment 1 states that something is good, and Segment 2 states that it is good because it promotes something good when it happens. We are motivated by the following questions: (i) how do we formulate the task?, (ii) can a reasonable pattern set be created?, and (iii) do the patterns work? To examine the task feasibility, we conduct a three-stage, detailed annotation study using 357 argumentative relations from the argumentative microtext corpus, a small, but highly reliable corpus. We report the coverage of explanations captured by our patterns on a test set composed of 270 relations. Our coverage result of 74.6% indicates that argumentative relations can reasonably be explained by our small pattern set. Our agreement result of 85.9% shows that a reasonable inter-annotator agreement can be achieved. To assist with future work in computational argumentation, the annotated corpus is made publicly available.
When speaking or writing, people omit information that seems clear and evident, such that only part of the message is expressed in words. Especially in argumentative texts it is very common that (important) parts of the argument are implied and omitted. We hypothesize that for argument analysis it will be beneficial to reconstruct this implied information. As a starting point for filling such knowledge gaps, we build a corpus consisting of high-quality human annotations of missing and implied information in argumentative texts. To learn more about the characteristics of both the argumentative …
The purpose of an argumentative text is to support a certain conclusion. Yet, they are often omitted, expecting readers to infer them rather. While appropriate when reading an individual text, this rhetorical device limits accessibility when browsing many texts (e.g., on a search engine or on social media). In these scenarios, an explicit conclusion makes for a good candidate summary of an argumentative text. This is especially true if the conclusion is informative, emphasizing specific concepts from the text. With this paper we introduce the task of generating informative conclusions: First, …
University of St.Gallen（圣加仑大学）；University of Passau（帕绍大学）；University of Kassel（卡塞尔大学）
In this paper, we present a novel annotation approach to capture claims and premises of arguments and their relations in student-written persuasive peer reviews on business models in German language. We propose an annotation scheme based on annotation guidelines that allows to model claims and premises as well as support and attack relations for capturing the structure of argumentative discourse in student-written peer reviews. We conduct an annotation study with three annotators on 50 persuasive essays to evaluate our annotation scheme. The obtained inter-rater agreement of $α=0.57$ for argum…
Analyzing how humans revise their writings is an interesting research question, not only from an educational perspective but also in terms of artificial intelligence. Better understanding of this process could facilitate many NLP applications, from intelligent tutoring systems to supportive and collaborative writing environments. Developing these applications, however, requires revision corpora, which are not widely available. In this work, we present ArgRewrite V.2, a corpus of annotated argumentative revisions, collected from two cycles of revisions to argumentative essays about self-driving…
Debate portals and similar web platforms constitute one of the main text sources in computational argumentation research and its applications. While the corpora built upon these sources are rich of argumentatively relevant content and structure, they also include text that is irrelevant, or even detrimental, to their purpose. In this paper, we present a precision-oriented approach to detecting such irrelevant text in a semi-supervised way. Given a few seed examples, the approach automatically learns basic lexical patterns of relevance and irrelevance and then incrementally bootstraps new patte…
MuLMS-AZ: An Argumentative Zoning Dataset for the Materials Science Domain
Bosch Center for Artificial Intelligence（博世人工智能中心）；Robert Bosch GmbH（罗伯特·博世有限公司）；LMU Munich（慕尼黑大学）；TU Darmstadt（达姆施塔特工业大学）；University of Augsburg（奥格斯堡大学）；University of Stuttgart（斯图加特大学）
Educational Testing Service（教育考试服务中心）；MindMeld, Cisco Systems（思科系统MindMeld部门）；Data Science Institute, Columbia University（哥伦比亚大学数据科学研究所）
Detecting arguments in online interactions is useful to understand how conflicts arise and get resolved. Users often use figurative language, such as sarcasm, either as persuasive devices or to attack the opponent by an ad hominem argument. To further our understanding of the role of sarcasm in shaping the disagreement space, we present a thorough experimental setup using a corpus annotated with both argumentative moves (agree/disagree) and sarcasm. We exploit joint modeling in terms of (a) applying discrete features that are useful in detecting sarcasm to the task of argumentative relation cl…
Federal University of Piauí（皮奥伊联邦大学）；Federal Institute of Piauí（皮奥伊联邦学院）
Automatic Essay Scoring (AES) is defined as the computer technology that evaluates and scores the written essays, aiming to provide computational models to grade essays either automatically or with minimal human involvement. While there are several AES studies in a variety of languages, few of them are focused on the Portuguese language. The main reason is the lack of a corpus with manually graded essays. In order to bridge this gap, we create a large corpus with several essays written by Brazilian high school students on an online platform. All of the essays are argumentative and were scored …
As AI is more and more pervasive in everyday life, humans have an increasing demand to understand its behavior and decisions. Most research on explainable AI builds on the premise that there is one ideal explanation to be found. In fact, however, everyday explanations are co-constructed in a dialogue between the person explaining (the explainer) and the specific person being explained to (the explainee). In this paper, we introduce a first corpus of dialogical explanations to enable NLP research on how humans explain as well as on how AI can learn to imitate this process. The corpus consists o…
Existing argumentation datasets have succeeded in allowing researchers to develop computational methods for analyzing the content, structure and linguistic features of argumentative text. They have been much less successful in fostering studies of the effect of "user" traits -- characteristics and beliefs of the participants -- on the debate/argument outcome as this type of user information is generally not available. This paper presents a dataset of 78, 376 debates generated over a 10-year period along with surprisingly comprehensive participant profiles. We also complete an example study usi…
Technische Universität Darmstadt（达姆施塔特工业大学）；German Institute for Educational Research（德国教育研究所）
In this article, we present a novel approach for parsing argumentation structures. We identify argument components using sequence labeling at the token level and apply a new joint model for detecting argumentation structures. The proposed model globally optimizes argument component types and argumentative relations using integer linear programming. We show that our model considerably improves the performance of base classifiers and significantly outperforms challenging heuristic baselines. Moreover, we introduce a novel corpus of persuasive essays annotated with argumentation structures. We sh…
One of the main tasks in argument mining is the retrieval of argumentative content pertaining to a given topic. Most previous work addressed this task by retrieving a relatively small number of relevant documents as the initial source for such content. This line of research yielded moderate success, which is of limited use in a real-world system. Furthermore, for such a system to yield a comprehensive set of relevant arguments, over a wide range of topics, it requires leveraging a large and diverse corpus in an appropriate manner. Here we present a first end-to-end high-precision, corpus-wide …
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur（坎普尔印度理工学院）；Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Kolkata（加尔各答印度科学教育与研究学院）；West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences（西孟加拉国立法科大学）
An automated system that could assist a judge in predicting the outcome of a case would help expedite the judicial process. For such a system to be practically useful, predictions by the system should be explainable. To promote research in developing such a system, we introduce ILDC (Indian Legal Documents Corpus). ILDC is a large corpus of 35k Indian Supreme Court cases annotated with original court decisions. A portion of the corpus (a separate test set) is annotated with gold standard explanations by legal experts. Based on ILDC, we propose the task of Court Judgment Prediction and Explanat…
Using attention weights to identify information that is important for models' decision-making is a popular approach to interpret attention-based neural networks. This is commonly realized in practice through the generation of a heat-map for every single document based on attention weights. However, this interpretation method is fragile, and easy to find contradictory examples. In this paper, we propose a corpus-level explanation approach, which aims to capture causal relationships between keywords and model predictions via learning the importance of keywords for predicted labels across a train…
Although Natural Language Processing (NLP) research on argument mining has advanced considerably in recent years, most studies draw on corpora of asynchronous and written texts, often produced by individuals. Few published corpora of synchronous, multi-party argumentation are available. The Discussion Tracker corpus, collected in American high school English classes, is an annotated dataset of transcripts of spoken, multi-party argumentation. The corpus consists of 29 multi-party discussions of English literature transcribed from 985 minutes of audio. The transcripts were annotated for three d…
Building compositional explanations requires models to combine two or more facts that, together, describe why the answer to a question is correct. Typically, these "multi-hop" explanations are evaluated relative to one (or a small number of) gold explanations. In this work, we show these evaluations substantially underestimate model performance, both in terms of the relevance of included facts, as well as the completeness of model-generated explanations, because models regularly discover and produce valid explanations that are different than gold explanations. To address this, we construct a l…
In argumentative discourse, persuasion is often achieved by refuting or attacking others arguments. Attacking is not always straightforward and often comprise complex rhetorical moves such that arguers might agree with a logic of an argument while attacking another logic. Moreover, arguer might neither deny nor agree with any logics of an argument, instead ignore them and attack the main stance of the argument by providing new logics and presupposing that the new logics have more value or importance than the logics present in the attacked argument. However, no existing studies in the computati…
Vyatka State University（维亚特卡国立大学）；ITMO University（ITMO大学）
Argumentation mining is a field of computational linguistics that is devoted to extracting from texts and classifying arguments and relations between them, as well as constructing an argumentative structure. A significant obstacle to research in this area for the Russian language is the lack of annotated Russian-language text corpora. This article explores the possibility of improving the quality of argumentation mining using the extension of the Russian-language version of the Argumentative Microtext Corpus (ArgMicro) based on the machine translation of the Persuasive Essays Corpus (PersEssay…
Recent works in Explainable AI mostly address the transparency issue of black-box models or create explanations for any kind of models (i.e., they are model-agnostic), while leaving explanations of interpretable models largely underexplored. In this paper, we fill this gap by focusing on explanations for a specific interpretable model, namely pattern-based logistic regression (PLR) for binary text classification. We do so because, albeit interpretable, PLR is challenging when it comes to explanations. In particular, we found that a standard way to extract explanations from this model does not …
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology（卡尔斯鲁厄理工学院）；Allen Institute for AI（艾伦人工智能研究所）
In this paper, we present and implement a multi-dimensional, modular framework for performing deep argument analysis (DeepA2) using current pre-trained language models (PTLMs). ArgumentAnalyst -- a T5 model (Raffel et al. 2020) set up and trained within DeepA2 -- reconstructs argumentative texts, which advance an informal argumentation, as valid arguments: It inserts, e.g., missing premises and conclusions, formalizes inferences, and coherently links the logical reconstruction to the source text. We create a synthetic corpus for deep argument analysis, and evaluate ArgumentAnalyst on this new …
Creating explanations for answers to science questions is a challenging task that requires multi-hop inference over a large set of fact sentences. This year, to refocus the Textgraphs Shared Task on the problem of gathering relevant statements (rather than solely finding a single 'correct path'), the WorldTree dataset was augmented with expert ratings of 'relevance' of statements to each overall explanation. Our system, which achieved second place on the Shared Task leaderboard, combines initial statement retrieval; language models trained to predict the relevance scores; and ensembling of a n…
Explainable question answering for science questions is a challenging task that requires multi-hop inference over a large set of fact sentences. To counter the limitations of methods that view each query-document pair in isolation, we propose the LSTM-Interleaved Transformer which incorporates cross-document interactions for improved multi-hop ranking. The LIT architecture can leverage prior ranking positions in the re-ranking setting. Our model is competitive on the current leaderboard for the TextGraphs 2020 shared task, achieving a test-set MAP of 0.5607, and would have gained third place h…
CasiMedicos-Arg: A Medical Question Answering Dataset Annotated with Explanatory Argumentative Structures
Université Côte d’Azur（蔚蓝海岸大学）；CNRS（法国国家科学研究中心）；Inria（法国国家信息与自动化研究所）；I3S（信息科学与信号处理实验室）；HiTZ Center - Ixa（HiTZ中心-Ixa团队）；University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU（巴斯克大学）
Universitat Politècnica de València（瓦伦西亚理工大学）；Valencian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence (VRAIN)（瓦伦西亚人工智能研究所）
Argument Mining is defined as the task of automatically identifying and extracting argumentative components (e.g., premises, claims, etc.) and detecting the existing relations among them (i.e., support, attack, rephrase, no relation). One of the main issues when approaching this problem is the lack of data, and the size of the publicly available corpora. In this work, we use the recently annotated US2016 debate corpus. US2016 is the largest existing argument annotated corpus, which allows exploring the benefits of the most recent advances in Natural Language Processing in a complex domain like…
Developing methods of automated inference that are able to provide users with compelling human-readable justifications for why the answer to a question is correct is critical for domains such as science and medicine, where user trust and detecting costly errors are limiting factors to adoption. One of the central barriers to training question answering models on explainable inference tasks is the lack of gold explanations to serve as training data. In this paper we present a corpus of explanations for standardized science exams, a recent challenge task for question answering. We manually const…
University of Oxford（牛津大学）；Alan Turing Institute（艾伦·图灵研究所）；University of Tuebingen（图宾根大学）
The recently proposed SNLI-VE corpus for recognising visual-textual entailment is a large, real-world dataset for fine-grained multimodal reasoning. However, the automatic way in which SNLI-VE has been assembled (via combining parts of two related datasets) gives rise to a large number of errors in the labels of this corpus. In this paper, we first present a data collection effort to correct the class with the highest error rate in SNLI-VE. Secondly, we re-evaluate an existing model on the corrected corpus, which we call SNLI-VE-2.0, and provide a quantitative comparison with its performance o…
University of Manchester（曼彻斯特大学）；Idiap Research Institute（Idiap研究所）
This paper presents a novel framework for reconstructing multi-hop explanations in science Question Answering (QA). While existing approaches for multi-hop reasoning build explanations considering each question in isolation, we propose a method to leverage explanatory patterns emerging in a corpus of scientific explanations. Specifically, the framework ranks a set of atomic facts by integrating lexical relevance with the notion of unification power, estimated analysing explanations for similar questions in the corpus. An extensive evaluation is performed on the Worldtree corpus, integrating k-…
