اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدAMPERSAND: Argument Mining for PERSuAsive oNline Discussions
91
0
0.0
(
0
)
نشر من قبل
Tuhin Chakrabarty Mr
تاريخ النشر
2020
مجال البحث
الهندسة المعلوماتية
والبحث باللغة
English
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Argumentation is a type of discourse where speakers try to persuade their audience about the reasonableness of a claim by presenting supportive arguments. Most work in argument mining has focused on modeling arguments in monologues. We propose a computational model for argument mining in online persuasive discussion forums that brings together the micro-level (argument as product) and macro-level (argument as process) models of argumentation. Fundamentally, this approach relies on identifying relations between components of arguments in a discussion thread. Our approach for relation prediction uses contextual information in terms of fine-tuning a pre-trained language model and leveraging discourse relations based on Rhetorical Structure Theory. We additionally propose a candidate selection method to automatically predict what parts of ones argument will be targeted by other participants in the discussion. Our models obtain significant improvements compared to recent state-of-the-art approaches using pointer networks and a pre-trained language model.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
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 eng
ine 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.
Peer reviewing is a central process in modern research and essential for ensuring high quality and reliability of published work. At the same time, it is a time-consuming process and increasing interest in emerging fields often results in a high revi
ew workload, especially for senior researchers in this area. How to cope with this problem is an open question and it is vividly discussed across all major conferences. In this work, we propose an Argument Mining based approach for the assistance of editors, meta-reviewers, and reviewers. We demonstrate that the decision process in the field of scientific publications is driven by arguments and automatic argument identification is helpful in various use-cases. One of our findings is that arguments used in the peer-review process differ from arguments in other domains making the transfer of pre-trained models difficult. Therefore, we provide the community with a new peer-review dataset from different computer science conferences with annotated arguments. In our extensive empirical evaluation, we show that Argument Mining can be used to efficiently extract the most relevant parts from reviews, which are paramount for the publication decision. The process remains interpretable since the extracted arguments can be highlighted in a review without detaching them from their context.
Growing amount of comments make online discussions difficult to moderate by human moderators only. Antisocial behavior is a common occurrence that often discourages other users from participating in discussion. We propose a neural network based metho
d that partially automates the moderation process. It consists of two steps. First, we detect inappropriate comments for moderators to see. Second, we highlight inappropriate parts within these comments to make the moderation faster. We evaluated our method on data from a major Slovak news discussion platform.
Developing intelligent persuasive conversational agents to change peoples opinions and actions for social good is the frontier in advancing the ethical development of automated dialogue systems. To do so, the first step is to understand the intricate
organization of strategic disclosures and appeals employed in human persuasion conversations. We designed an online persuasion task where one participant was asked to persuade the other to donate to a specific charity. We collected a large dataset with 1,017 dialogues and annotated emerging persuasion strategies from a subset. Based on the annotation, we built a baseline classifier with context information and sentence-level features to predict the 10 persuasion strategies used in the corpus. Furthermore, to develop an understanding of personalized persuasion processes, we analyzed the relationships between individuals demographic and psychological backgrounds including personality, morality, value systems, and their willingness for donation. Then, we analyzed which types of persuasion strategies led to a greater amount of donation depending on the individuals personal backgrounds. This work lays the ground for developing a personalized persuasive dialogue system.
Decision-making usually takes five steps: identifying the problem, collecting data, extracting evidence, identifying pro and con arguments, and making decisions. Focusing on extracting evidence, this paper presents a hybrid model that combines latent
Dirichlet allocation and word embeddings to obtain external knowledge from structured and unstructured data. We study the task of sentence-level argument mining, as arguments mostly require some degree of world knowledge to be identified and understood. Given a topic and a sentence, the goal is to classify whether a sentence represents an argument in regard to the topic. We use a topic model to extract topic- and sentence-specific evidence from the structured knowledge base Wikidata, building a graph based on the cosine similarity between the entity word vectors of Wikidata and the vector of the given sentence. Also, we build a second graph based on topic-specific articles found via Google to tackle the general incompleteness of structured knowledge bases. Combining these graphs, we obtain a graph-based model which, as our evaluation shows, successfully capitalizes on both structured and unstructured data.
الأسئلة المقترحة
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
