Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userExploring Discourse Structures for Argument Impact Classification
93
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Xin Liu
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Discourse relations among arguments reveal logical structures of a debate conversation. However, no prior work has explicitly studied how the sequence of discourse relations influence a claims impact. 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 further propose DisCOC to inject and fuse the sentence-level structural discourse information with contextualized features derived from large-scale language models. Experimental results and extensive analysis show that the attention and gate mechanisms that explicitly model contexts and texts can indeed help the argument impact classification task defined by Durmus et al. (2019), and discourse structures among the context path of the claim to be classified can further boost the performance.
rate research
Read More
Research in the social sciences and psychology has shown that the persuasiveness of an argument depends not only the language employed, but also on attributes of the source/communicator, the audience, and the appropriateness and strength of the arguments claims given the pragmatic and discourse context of the argument. Among these characteristics of persuasive arguments, prior work in NLP does not explicitly investigate the effect of the pragmatic and discourse context when determining argument quality. 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 further propose predictive models that incorporate the pragmatic and discourse context of argumentative claims and show that they outperform models that rely only on claim-specific linguistic features for predicting the perceived impact of individual claims within a particular line of argument.
Public debate forums provide a common platform for exchanging opinions on a topic of interest. While recent studies in natural language processing (NLP) have provided empirical evidence that the language of the debaters and their patterns of interaction play a key role in changing the mind of a reader, research in psychology has shown that prior beliefs can affect our interpretation of an argument and could therefore constitute a competing alternative explanation for resistance to changing ones stance. To study the actual effect of language use vs. prior beliefs on persuasion, we provide a new dataset and propose a controlled setting that takes into consideration two reader level factors: political and religious ideology. We find that prior beliefs affected by these reader level factors play a more important role than language use effects and argue that it is important to account for them in NLP studies of persuasion.
Implicit discourse relations are not only more challenging to classify, but also to annotate, than their explicit counterparts. We tackle situations where training data for implicit relations are lacking, and exploit domain adaptation from explicit relations (Ji et al., 2015). We present an unsupervised adversarial domain adaptive network equipped with a reconstruction component. Our system outperforms prior works and other adversarial benchmarks for unsupervised domain adaptation. Additionally, we extend our system to take advantage of labeled data if some are available.
Systems for automatic argument generation and debate require the ability to (1) determine the stance of any claims employed in the argument and (2) assess the specificity of each claim relative to the argument context. Existing work on understanding claim specificity and stance, however, has been limited to the study of argumentative structures that are relatively shallow, most often consisting of a single claim that directly supports or opposes the argument thesis. In this paper, we tackle these tasks in the context of complex arguments on a diverse set of topics. In particular, our dataset consists of manually curated argument trees for 741 controversial topics covering 95,312 unique claims; lines of argument are generally of depth 2 to 6. We find that as the distance between a pair of claims increases along the argument path, determining the relative specificity of a pair of claims becomes easier and determining their relative stance becomes harder.
Identifying events and mapping them to pre-defined event types has long been an important natural language processing problem. Most previous work has been heavily relying on labor-intensive and domain-specific annotations while ignoring the semantic meaning contained in the labels of the event types. As a result, the learned models cannot effectively generalize to new domains, where new event types could be introduced. In this paper, we propose an unsupervised event extraction pipeline, which first identifies events with available tools (e.g., SRL) and then automatically maps them to pre-defined event types with our proposed unsupervised classification model. Rather than relying on annotated data, our model matches the semantics of identified events with those of event type labels. Specifically, we leverage pre-trained language models to contextually represent pre-defined types for both event triggers and arguments. After we map identified events to the target types via representation similarity, we use the event ontology (e.g., argument type Victim can only appear as the argument of event type Attack) as global constraints to regularize the prediction. The proposed approach is shown to be very effective when tested on the ACE-2005 dataset, which has 33 trigger and 22 argument types. Without using any annotation, we successfully map 83% of the triggers and 54% of the arguments to the correct types, almost doubling the performance of previous zero-shot approaches.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
