Abstract
Argumentation has proven successful in a number of domains, including Multi-Agent Systems and decision support in medicine and engineering. We propose its application to a domain yet largely unexplored by argumentation research: computational linguistics. We have developed a novel classification methodology that incorporates reasoning through argumentation with supervised learning. We train classifiers and then argue about the validity of their output. To do so, we identify arguments that formalise prototypical knowledge of a problem and use them to correct misclassifications. We illustrate our methodology on two tasks. On the one hand, we address cross-domain sentiment polarity classification, where we train classifiers on one corpus, for example, Tweets, to identify positive/negative polarity and classify instances from another corpus, for example, sentences from movie reviews. On the other hand, we address a form of argumentation mining that we call Relation-based Argumentation Mining, where we classify pairs of sentences based on whether the first sentence attacks or supports the second or whether it does neither. Whenever we find that one sentence attacks/supports the other, we consider both to be argumentative, irrespective of their stand-alone argumentativeness. For both tasks, we improve classification performance when using our methodology, compared to using standard classifiers only.
- Teresa Alsinet, Carlos Iván Chesñevar, Lluis Godo, and Guillermo Ricardo Simari. 2008. A logic programming framework for possibilistic argumentation: Formalization and logical properties. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 159 (2008), 1208--1228. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Leila Amgoud, Philippe Besnard, and Anthony Hunter. 2015. Representing and reasoning about arguments mined from texts and dialogues. In Proceedings of European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, LNCS, Vol. 9161. Springer, 60--71.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Leila Amgoud, Claudette Cayrol, Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex, and Pierre Livet. 2008. On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 23, 10 (2008), 1062--1093. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Leila Amgoud and Mathieu Serrurier. 2008a. Agents that argue and explain classifications. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 16, 2 (2008), 187--209. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Leila Amgoud and Mathieu Serrurier. 2008b. Arguing and explaining classifications. In Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. Springer, 164--177. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Emma Barker and Robert Gaizauskas. 2016. Summarizing multi-party argumentative conversations in reader comment on news. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Argumentation Mining. 12.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Pietro Baroni, Marco Romano, Francesca Toni, Marco Aurisicchio, and Giorgio Bertanza. 2015. Automatic evaluation of design alternatives with quantitative argumentation. Arg. Comput. 6, 1 (2015), 24--49.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Sahbi Benlamine, Maher Chaouachi, Serena Villata, Elena Cabrio, Claude Frasson, and Fabien Gandon. 2015. Emotions in argumentation: An empirical evaluation. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’15). 156--163. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Floris Bex, Sanjay Modgil, Henry Prakken, and Chris Reed. 2013. On logical specifications of the argument interchange format. J. Logic Comput. 23 (2013), 951--989.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Danushka Bollegala, David Weir, and John Carroll. 2011. Using multiple sources to construct a sentiment sensitive thesaurus for cross-domain sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the ACL: Human Language Technologies (ACL-HLT)-Volume 1. ACL, 132--141. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Danushka Bollegala, David Weir, and John Carroll. 2013. Cross-domain sentiment classification using a sentiment sensitive thesaurus. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 25, 8 (2013), 1719--1731. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Filip Boltuzic and Jan Šnajder. 2014. Back up your stance: Recognizing arguments in online discussions. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Argumentation Mining. 49--58.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Filip Boltuzic and Jan Šnajder. 2015. Identifying prominent arguments in online debates using semantic textual similarity. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining. 110--115.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Leo Breiman. 2001. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 1 (2001), 5--32. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Elena Cabrio and Serena Villata. 2014. NoDE: A benchmark of natural language arguments. COMMA 266 (2014), 449--450.Google Scholar
- Erik Cambria and Bruce White. 2014. Jumping NLP curves: A review of natural language processing research {review article}. IEEE Comput. Intell. Mag. 9, 2 (2014), 48--57. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Lucas Carstens, Xiuyi Fan, Yang Gao, and Francesca Toni. 2015. An overview of argumentation frameworks for decision support. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop Graph Structures for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (GKR). 32--49.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Lucas Carstens and Francesca Toni. 2015a. Improving out-of-domain sentiment polarity classification using argumentation. In SENTIRE. IEEE, 1294--1301. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Lucas Carstens and Francesca Toni. 2015b. Towards relation based argumentation mining. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining. 29--34.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Lucas Carstens, Francesca Toni, and Valentinos Evripidou. 2014. Argument mining and social debates. In Proceedings of Computational Models of Argument (COMMA'14). 451--452.Google Scholar
- Claudette. Cayrol and Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex. 2005. On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In ECSQARU. 378--389. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Chih-Chung Chang and Chih-Jen Lin. 2011. LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 2, 3 (2011), 27. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Carlos Ivan Chesnevar, Jarred McGinnis, Sanjay Modgil, Iyad Rahwan, Chris Reed, Guillermo Ricardo Simari, Matthew South, Gerard Vreeswijk, and Steven Willmott. 2006. Towards an argument interchange format. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 21, 4 (2006), 293--316. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Oana Cocarascu and Francesca Toni. 2016. Argumentation for machine learning: A survey. COMMA (2016), 219.Google Scholar
- Ronan Collobert, Jason Weston, Léon Bottou, Michael Karlen, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Pavel Kuksa. 2011. Natural language processing (almost) from scratch. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12 (2011), 2493--2537. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Corinna Cortes and Vladimir Vapnik. 1995. Support-vector networks. Mach. Learn. 20, 3 (1995), 273--297. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2006. The PASCAL recognising textual entailment challenge. Machine Learning Challenges. Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty, Visual Object Classification, and Recognising Tectual Entailment (2006), 177--190. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Mauro Dragoni, Andrea GB Tettamanzi, and Célia da Costa Pereira. 2015. Propagating and aggregating fuzzy polarities for concept-level sentiment analysis. Cogni. Comput. 7, 2 (2015), 186--197.Google Scholar
- Phan Minh Dung. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 2 (1995), 321--357. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Valentinos Evripidou and Francesca Toni. 2014. Quaestio-it. com: A social intelligent debating platform. J. Decision Syst. 23, 3 (2014), 333--349.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Yang Gao and Francesca Toni. 2014. Argumentation accelerated reinforcement learning for cooperative multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI). IOS Press, 333. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Mehmet Gönen, Ayse Gönül Tanugur, and Ethem Alpaydin. 2008. Multiclass posterior probability support vector machines. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 19, 1 (2008), 130--139. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Mark Hall, Eibe Frank, Geoffrey Holmes, Bernhard Pfahringer, Peter Reutemann, and Ian H. Witten. 2009. The WEKA data mining software: An update. ACM SIGKDD Explor. Newslett. 11, 1 (2009), 10--18. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Alexander Hogenboom, Flavius Frasincar, Franciska de Jong, and Uzay Kaymak. 2015. Using rhetorical structure in sentiment analysis. Commun. ACM 58, 7 (2015), 69--77. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Minqing Hu and Bing Liu. 2004. Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 168--177. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Long Jiang, Mo Yu, Ming Zhou, Xiaohua Liu, and Tiejun Zhao. 2011. Target-dependent twitter sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the ACL: Human Language Technologies (ACL-HLT)-Volume 1. ACL, 151--160. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- George H. John and Pat Langley. 1995. Estimating continuous distributions in Bayesian classifiers. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI). Morgan Kaufmann, 338--345. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Christian Kirschner, Judith Eckle-Kohler, and Iryna Gurevych. 2015. Linking the thoughts: Analysis of argumentation structures in scientific publications. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining. 1--11.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Efthymios Kouloumpis, Theresa Wilson, and Johanna Moore. 2011. Twitter sentiment analysis: The good the bad and the omg! In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM), Vol. 11. AAAI, 538--541.Google Scholar
- Robert A Kowalski and Francesca Toni. 1996. Abstract argumentation. Artif. Intell. Law 4, 3--4 (1996), 275--296. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- John Lawrence, Floris Bex, Chris Reed, and Mark Snaith. 2012. AIFdb: Infrastructure for the argument web. In Proceedings of Computational Models of Argument (COMMA). IOS Press, 515--516.Google Scholar
- John Lawrence and Chris Reed. 2014. AIFdb corpora. Proceedings of Computational Models of Argument (COMMA) 266 (2014), 465.Google Scholar
- Marco Lippi and Paolo Torroni. 2015a. Argument mining: A machine learning perspective. In Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation. Springer, 163--176.Google Scholar
- Marco Lippi and Paolo Torroni. 2015b. Context-independent claim detection for argument mining. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ICAI). AAAI Press, 185--191. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Paul-Amaury Matt and Francesca Toni. 2008. A game-theoretic measure of argument strength for abstract argumentation. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2008). 285--297. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S. Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Citeseer, 3111--3119. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Sanjay Modgil, Francesca Toni, Floris Bex, Ivan Bratko, Carlos I. Chesñevar, Wolfgang Dvořák, Marcelo A. Falappa, Xiuyi Fan, Sarah Alice Gaggl, Alejandro J. García, and others. 2013. The added value of argumentation. In Agreement Technologies. Springer, 357--403.Google Scholar
- Marie-Francine Moens, Erik Boiy, Raquel Palau, and Chris Reed. 2007. Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL). ACM, 225--230. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Martin Mozina, Jure Zabkar, Trevor Bench-Capon, and Ivan Bratko. 2005. Argument based machine learning applied to law. Artif. Intell. Law 13, 1 (2005), 53--73. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Martin Mozina, Jure Zabkar, and Ivan Bratko. 2007. Argument based machine learning. Artif. Intell. 171, 10--15 (2007), 922--937. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Prakash M. Nadkarni, Lucila Ohno-Machado, and Wendy W. Chapman. 2011. Natural language processing: An introduction. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 18, 5 (2011), 544--551.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Thais Mayumi Oshiro, Pedro Santoro Perez, and José Augusto Baranauskas. 2012. How many trees in a random forest? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning and Data Mining (MLDM). Springer, 154--168. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Raquel Palau and Marie-Francine Moens. 2009. Argumentation mining: The detection, classification and structure of arguments in text. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL). ACM, 98--107. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Bo Pang and Lilian Lee. 2005. Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on ACL. ACL, 115--124. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Bo Pang, Lilian Lee, and Shivakumar Vaithyanathan. 2002. Thumbs up?: Sentiment classification using machine learning techniques. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Vol. 10. ACL, 79--86. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Joonsuk Park and Claire Cardie. 2014. Identifying appropriate support for propositions in online user comments. Proceedings of The 52nd Annual Meeting of the ACL (2014), 29.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Andreas Peldszus and Manfred Stede. 2013. From argument diagrams to argumentation mining in texts: A survey. Int.l J. Cogn. Inform. Nat. Intell. 7, 1 (2013), 1--31. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Georgios Petasis and Vangelis Karkaletsis. 2016. Identifying argument components through textrank. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Argumentation Mining (2016), 94.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- John C. Platt. 1999. Probabilities for SV machines. In Advances in Large Margin Classifiers. MIT Press, 61--74.Google Scholar
- Antonio Rago, Francesca Toni, Marco Aurisicchio, and Pietro Baroni. 2016. Discontinuity-free decision support with quantitative argumentation debates. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Principles and Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR). AAAI, 63--73. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Iyad Rahwan and Chris Reed. 2009. The argument interchange format. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 383--402.Google Scholar
- Chris Reed and Glenn Rowe. 2004. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools 13, 4 (2004), 961--979.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Niall Rooney, Hui Wang, and Fiona Browne. 2012. Applying kernel methods to argumentation mining. In Proceedings of the 25th Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (FLAIRS). AAAI.Google Scholar
- Sara Rosenthal, Preslav Nakov, Svetlana Kiritchenko, Saif M. Mohammad, Alan Ritter, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2015. Semeval-2015 task 10: Sentiment analysis in Twitter. In Proceedings of SemEval 2015.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Hassan Saif, Miriam Fernandez, Yulan He, and Harith Alani. 2013. Evaluation datasets for twitter sentiment analysis: A survey and a new dataset, the sts-gold. In Proceedings of the 1st Interantional Workshop on Emotion and Sentiment in Social and Expressive Media: Approaches and Perspectives from AI (ESSEM 2’13). AI*IA, 9--21.Google Scholar
- Gerard Salton and Michael J. McGill. 1986. Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval. McGraw--Hill, Inc. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Niek J. Sanders. 2011. Sanders-Twitter Sentiment Corpus. http://www.sananalytics.com/lab/twitter-sentiment. Accessed: 2017-04-24.Google Scholar
- Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Y. Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Y. Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP, Vol. 1631. ACL, 1642.Google Scholar
- Maite Taboada, Julian Brooke, Milan Tofiloski, Kimberly Voll, and Manfred Stede. 2011. Lexicon-based methods for sentiment analysis. Comput. Ling. 37, 2 (2011), 267--307. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Orith Toledo-Ronen, Roy Bar-Haim, and Noam Slonim. 2016. Expert stance graphs for computational argumentation. Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Argumentation Mining (2016), 119.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Stephen Toulmin. 2003. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Angela Charng-Rurng Tsai, Chi-En Wu, Richard Tzong-Han Tsai, and Jane Yung-jen Hsu. 2013. Building a concept-level sentiment dictionary based on commonsense knowledge. IEEE Intell. Syst. (2013), 22--30. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Peter D. Turney. 2002. Thumbs up or thumbs down?: Semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on ACL (ACL). ACL, 417--424. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Frans H. Van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst. 2003. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Vol. 14. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Marilyn A. Walker, Jean E. Fox Tree, Pranav Anand, Rob Abbott, and Joseph King. 2012. A corpus for research on deliberation and debate. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC). Citeseer, 812--817.Google Scholar
- Albert Weichselbraun, Stefan Gindl, and Arno Scharl. 2014. Enriching semantic knowledge bases for opinion mining in big data applications. Knowl.-Based Syst. 69 (2014), 78--85. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Janyce Wiebe, Theresa Wilson, Rebecca Bruce, Matthew Bell, and Melanie Martin. 2004. Learning subjective language. Comput. Ling. 30, 3 (2004), 277--308. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Zhibiao Wu and Martha Palmer. 1994. Verbs semantics and lexical selection. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting on ACL. 133--138. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Rui Xia, Chengqing Zong, Xuelei Hu, and Erik Cambria. 2013. Feature ensemble plus sample selection: Domain adaptation for sentiment classification. IEEE Intell. Syst. 28, 3 (2013), 10--18. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Alexander Yeh. 2000. More accurate tests for the statistical significance of result differences. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Computational Linguistics-Volume 2. ACL, 947--953. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Min Zhang and Xingyao Ye. 2008. A generation model to unify topic relevance and lexicon-based sentiment for opinion retrieval. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. ACM, 411--418. Google Scholar
Digital Library
Index Terms
Using Argumentation to Improve Classification in Natural Language Problems
Recommendations
Computing ideal sceptical argumentation
We present two dialectic procedures for the sceptical ideal semantics for argumentation. The first procedure is defined in terms of dispute trees, for abstract argumentation frameworks. The second procedure is defined in dialectical terms, for ...
Computing Arguments and Attacks in Assumption-Based Argumentation
CaSAPI (Credulous and Skeptical Argumentation: Prolog Implementation) 3.0 determines the acceptability of claims, using the general-purpose framework of assumption-based argumentation, under the semantics of admissible extensions. This framework reduces ...
Hybrid argumentation and its properties
Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008We present a variant of AB-dispute derivations for assumption-based argumentation (ABA), that can be used for determining the admissibility of claims. ABA reduces the problem of computing arguments to the problem of computing assumptions supporting ...






Comments