Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userArgument Undermining: Counter-Argument Generation by Attacking Weak Premises
103
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Milad Alshomary
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Text generation has received a lot of attention in computational argumentation research as of recent. A particularly challenging task is the generation of counter-arguments. So far, approaches primarily focus on rebutting a given conclusion, yet other ways to counter an argument exist. In this work, we go beyond previous research by exploring argument undermining, that is, countering an argument by attacking one of its premises. We hypothesize that identifying the arguments weak premises is key to effective countering. Accordingly, we propose a pipeline approach that first assesses the premises strength and then generates a counter-argument targeting the weak ones. On the one hand, both manual and automatic evaluation proves the importance of identifying weak premises in counter-argument generation. On the other hand, when considering correctness and content richness, human annotators favored our approach over state-of-the-art counter-argument generation.
rate research
Read More
We present a novel document-level model for finding argument spans that fill an events roles, connecting related ideas in sentence-level semantic role labeling and coreference resolution. Because existing datasets for cross-sentence linking are small, development of our neural model is supported through the creation of a new resource, Roles Across Multiple Sentences (RAMS), which contains 9,124 annotated events across 139 types. We demonstrate strong performance of our model on RAMS and other event-related datasets.
Event extraction (EE), which acquires structural event knowledge from texts, can be divided into two sub-tasks: event type classification and element extraction (namely identifying triggers and arguments under different role patterns). As different event types always own distinct extraction schemas (i.e., role patterns), previous work on EE usually follows an isolated learning paradigm, performing element extraction independently for different event types. It ignores meaningful associations among event types and argument roles, leading to relatively poor performance for less frequent types/roles. This paper proposes a novel neural association framework for the EE task. Given a document, it first performs type classification via constructing a document-level graph to associate sentence nodes of different types, and adopting a graph attention network to learn sentence embeddings. Then, element extraction is achieved by building a universal schema of argument roles, with a parameter inheritance mechanism to enhance role preference for extracted elements. As such, our model takes into account type and role associations during EE, enabling implicit information sharing among them. Experimental results show that our approach consistently outperforms most state-of-the-art EE methods in both sub-tasks. Particularly, for types/roles with less training data, the performance is superior to the existing methods.
Predicate-argument structure analysis is a central component in meaning representations of text. The fact that some arguments are not explicitly mentioned in a sentence gives rise to ambiguity in language understanding, and renders it difficult for machines to interpret text correctly. However, only few resources represent implicit roles for NLU, and existing studies in NLP only make coarse distinctions between categories of arguments omitted from linguistic form. This paper proposes a typology for fine-grained implicit argument annotation on top of Universal Conceptual Cognitive Annotations foundational layer. The proposed implicit argument categorisation is driven by theories of implicit role interpretation and consists of six types: Deictic, Generic, Genre-based, Type-identifiable, Non-specific, and Iterated-set. We exemplify our design by revisiting part of the UCCA EWT corpus, providing a new dataset annotated with the refinement layer, and making a comparative analysis with other schemes.
Semantic role labeling (SRL) -- identifying the semantic relationships between a predicate and other constituents in the same sentence -- is a well-studied task in natural language understanding (NLU). However, many of these relationships are evident only at the level of the document, as a role for a predicate in one sentence may often be filled by an argument in a different one. This more general task, known as implicit semantic role labeling or argument linking, has received increased attention in recent years, as researchers have recognized its centrality to information extraction and NLU. This paper surveys the literature on argument linking and identifies several notable shortcomings of existing approaches that indicate the paths along which future research effort could most profitably be spent.
In this work we address the problem of argument search. The purpose of argument search is the distillation of pro and contra arguments for requested topics from large text corpora. In previous works, the usual approach is to use a standard search engine to extract text parts which are relevant to the given topic and subsequently use an argument recognition algorithm to select arguments from them. The main challenge in the argument recognition task, which is also known as argument mining, is that often sentences containing arguments are structurally similar to purely informative sentences without any stance about the topic. In fact, they only differ semantically. Most approaches use topic or search term information only for the first search step and therefore assume that arguments can be classified independently of a topic. We argue that topic information is crucial for argument mining, since the topic defines the semantic context of an argument. Precisely, we propose different models for the classification of arguments, which take information about a topic of an argument into account. Moreover, to enrich the context of a topic and to let models understand the context of the potential argument better, we integrate information from different external sources such as Knowledge Graphs or pre-trained NLP models. Our evaluation shows that considering topic information, especially in connection with external information, provides a significant performance boost for the argument mining task.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
