搜索结果：argument

Argument mining is natural language processing technology aimed at identifying arguments in text. Furthermore, the approach is being developed to identify the premises and claims of those arguments, and to identify the relationships between arguments including support and attack relationships. In this paper, we assume that an argument map contains the premises and claims of arguments, and support and attack relationships between them, that have been identified by argument mining. So from a piece of text, we assume an argument map is obtained automatically by natural language processing. However, to understand and to automatically analyse that argument map, it would be desirable to instantiate that argument map with logical arguments. Once we have the logical representation of the arguments in an argument map, we can use automated reasoning to analyze the argumentation (e.g. check consistency of premises, check validity of claims, and check the labelling on each arc corresponds with thw logical arguments). We address this need by using classical logic for representing the explicit information in the text, and using default logic for representing the implicit information in the text.

Argument systems are based on the idea that one can construct arguments for propositions; i.e., structured reasons justifying the belief in a proposition. Using defeasible rules, arguments need not be valid in all circumstances, therefore, it might be possible to construct an argument for a proposition as well as its negation. When arguments support conflicting propositions, one of the arguments must be defeated, which raises the question of \emph{which (sub-)arguments can be subject to defeat}? In legal argumentation, meta-rules determine the valid arguments by considering the last defeasible rule of each argument involved in a conflict. Since it is easier to evaluate arguments using their last rules, \emph{can a conflict be resolved by considering only the last defeasible rules of the arguments involved}? We propose a new argument system where, instead of deriving a defeat relation between arguments, \emph{undercutting-arguments} for the defeat of defeasible rules are constructed. This system allows us, (\textit{i}) to resolve conflicts (a generalization of rebutting arguments) using only the last rules of the arguments for inconsistencies, (\textit{ii}) to determine a set of val

Counterfactual explanation in abstract argumentation calls for an answer to the what-if query: would the topic argument still be accepted if the status of certain other arguments were changed? Existing approaches are limited to the but-for test and fail to accommodate more refined counterfactual conditions. To overcome these limitations, we introduce an intervention-based counterfactual reasoning framework in abstract argumentation. Our approach encodes the acceptance conditions of arguments as equations, then defines an intervention operator that supports (1) changing sets of arguments simultaneously, and (2) fixing witness arguments to their actual labels. Guided by the refined counterfactual condition introduced in the Halpern-Pearl definition, our method goes beyond the but-for test, thereby correctly identifying causes in argumentation structures such as Preemption and Overdetermination. Through comparison, we show that our method surpasses prior methods in both expressiveness and reliability.

Argument Mining (AM) helps in automating the extraction of complex argumentative structures such as Argument Components (ACs) like Premise, Claim etc. and Argumentative Relations (ARs) like Support, Attack etc. in an argumentative text. Due to the inherent complexity of reasoning involved with this task, modelling dependencies between ACs and ARs is challenging. Most of the recent approaches formulate this task through a generative paradigm by flattening the argumentative structures. In contrast to that, this study jointly formulates the key tasks of AM in an end-to-end fashion using Autoregressive Argumentative Structure Prediction (AASP) framework. The proposed AASP framework is based on the autoregressive structure prediction framework that has given good performance for several NLP tasks. AASP framework models the argumentative structures as constrained pre-defined sets of actions with the help of a conditional pre-trained language model. These actions build the argumentative structures step-by-step in an autoregressive manner to capture the flow of argumentative reasoning in an efficient way. Extensive experiments conducted on three standard AM benchmarks demonstrate that AASP

Argument graphs provide an abstract representation of an argumentative situation. A bipolar argument graph is a directed graph where each node denotes an argument, and each arc denotes the influence of one argument on another. Here we assume that the influence is supporting, attacking, or ambiguous. In a bipolar argument graph, each argument is atomic and so it has no internal structure. Yet to better understand the nature of the individual arguments, and how they interact, it is important to consider their internal structure. To address this need, this paper presents a framework based on the use of logical arguments to instantiate bipolar argument graphs, and a set of possible constraints on instantiating arguments that take into account the internal structure of the arguments, and the types of relationship between arguments.

Effective argumentation is essential towards a purposeful conversation with a satisfactory outcome. For example, persuading someone to reconsider smoking might involve empathetic, well founded arguments based on facts and expert opinions about its ill-effects and the consequences on one's family. However, the automatic generation of high-quality factual arguments can be challenging. Addressing existing controllability issues can make the recent advances in computational models for argument generation a potential solution. In this paper, we introduce ArgU: a neural argument generator capable of producing factual arguments from input facts and real-world concepts that can be explicitly controlled for stance and argument structure using Walton's argument scheme-based control codes. Unfortunately, computational argument generation is a relatively new field and lacks datasets conducive to training. Hence, we have compiled and released an annotated corpora of 69,428 arguments spanning six topics and six argument schemes, making it the largest publicly available corpus for identifying argument schemes; the paper details our annotation and dataset creation framework. We further experiment

Argument search aims at identifying arguments in natural language texts. In the past, this task has been addressed by a combination of keyword search and argument identification on the sentence- or document-level. However, existing frameworks often address only specific components of argument search and do not address the following aspects: (1) argument-query matching: identifying arguments that frame the topic slightly differently than the actual search query; (2) argument identification: identifying arguments that consist of multiple sentences; (3) argument clustering: selecting retrieved arguments by topical aspects. In this paper, we propose a framework for addressing these shortcomings. We suggest (1) to combine the keyword search with precomputed topic clusters for argument-query matching, (2) to apply a novel approach based on sentence-level sequence-labeling for argument identification, and (3) to present aggregated arguments to users based on topic-aware argument clustering. Our experiments on several real-world debate data sets demonstrate that density-based clustering algorithms, such as HDBSCAN, are particularly suitable for argument-query matching. With our sentence-le

In assessing argument strength, the notions of what makes a good argument are manifold. With the broader trend towards treating subjectivity as an asset and not a problem in NLP, new dimensions of argument quality are studied. Although studies on individual subjective features like personal stories exist, there is a lack of large-scale analyses of the relation between these features and argument strength. To address this gap, we conduct regression analysis to quantify the impact of subjective factors $-$ emotions, storytelling, and hedging $-$ on two standard datasets annotated for objective argument quality and subjective persuasion. As such, our contribution is twofold: at the level of contributed resources, as there are no datasets annotated with all studied dimensions, this work compares and evaluates automated annotation methods for each subjective feature. At the level of novel insights, our regression analysis uncovers different patterns of impact of subjective features on the two facets of argument strength encoded in the datasets. Our results show that storytelling and hedging have contrasting effects on objective and subjective argument quality, while the influence of emo

We contemplate a higher-level bipolar abstract argumentation for non-elementary arguments such as: X argues against Ys sincerity with the fact that Y has presented his argument to draw a conclusion C, by omitting other facts which would not have validated C. Argumentation involving such arguments requires us to potentially consider an argument as a coherent block of argumentation, i.e. an argument may itself be an argumentation. In this work, we formulate block argumentation as a specific instance of Dung-style bipolar abstract argumentation with the dual nature of arguments. We consider internal consistency of an argument(ation) under a set of constraints, of graphical (syntactic) and of semantic nature, and formulate acceptability semantics in relation to them. We discover that classical acceptability semantics do not in general hold good with the constraints. In particular, acceptability of unattacked arguments is not always warranted. Further, there may not be a unique minimal member in complete semantics, thus sceptic (grounded) semantics may not be its subset. To retain set-theoretically minimal semantics as a subset of complete semantics, we define semi-grounded semantics. T

In formal argumentation, a distinction can be made between extension-based semantics, where sets of arguments are either (jointly) accepted or not, and ranking-based semantics, where grades of acceptability are assigned to arguments. Another important distinction is that between abstract approaches, that abstract away from the content of arguments, and structured approaches, that specify a method of constructing argument graphs on the basis of a knowledge base. While ranking-based semantics have been extensively applied to abstract argumentation, few work has been done on ranking-based semantics for structured argumentation. In this paper, we make a systematic investigation into the behaviour of ranking-based semantics applied to existing formalisms for structured argumentation. We show that a wide class of ranking-based semantics gives rise to so-called culpability measures, and are relatively robust to specific choices in argument construction methods.

Abstract argumentation provides us with methods such as gradual and Dung semantics with which to evaluate arguments after potential attacks by other arguments. Some of these methods can take intrinsic strengths of arguments as input, with which to modulate the effects of attacks between arguments. Coming from abstract argumentation, these methods look only at the relations between arguments and not at the structure of the arguments themselves. In structured argumentation the way an argument is constructed, by chaining inference rules starting from premises, is taken into consideration. In this paper we study methods for assigning an argument its intrinsic strength, based on the strengths of the premises and inference rules used to form said argument. We first define a set of principles, which are properties that strength assigning methods might satisfy. We then propose two such methods and analyse which principles they satisfy. Finally, we present a generalised system for creating novel strength assigning methods and speak to the properties of this system regarding the proposed principles.

Much research in computational argumentation assumes that arguments and counterarguments can be obtained in some way. Yet, to improve and apply models of argument, we need methods for acquiring them. Current approaches include argument mining from text, hand coding of arguments by researchers, or generating arguments from knowledge bases. In this paper, we propose a new approach, which we call argument harvesting, that uses a chatbot to enter into a dialogue with a participant to get arguments and counterarguments from him or her. Because it is automated, the chatbot can be used repeatedly in many dialogues, and thereby it can generate a large corpus. We describe the architecture of the chatbot, provide methods for managing a corpus of arguments and counterarguments, and an evaluation of our approach in a case study concerning attitudes of women to participation in sport.

Dialogical Argument Mining(DialAM) is an important branch of Argument Mining(AM). DialAM-2024 is a shared task focusing on dialogical argument mining, which requires us to identify argumentative relations and illocutionary relations among proposition nodes and locution nodes. To accomplish this, we propose a two-stage pipeline, which includes the Two-Step S-Node Prediction Model in Stage 1 and the YA-Node Prediction Model in Stage 2. We also augment the training data in both stages and introduce context in Stage 2. We successfully completed the task and achieved good results. Our team Pokemon ranked 1st in the ARI Focused score and 4th in the Global Focused score.

In 1651 the Italian astronomer Giovanni Battista Riccioli published within his Almagestum Novum, a massive 1500 page treatise on astronomy, a discussion of 126 arguments for and against the Copernican hypothesis (49 for, 77 against). A synopsis of each argument is presented here, with discussion and analysis. Seen through Riccioli's 126 arguments, the debate over the Copernican hypothesis appears dynamic and indeed similar to more modern scientific debates. Both sides present good arguments as point and counter-point. Religious arguments play a minor role in the debate; careful, reproducible experiments a major role. To Riccioli, the anti-Copernican arguments carry the greater weight, on the basis of a few key arguments against which the Copernicans have no good response. These include arguments based on telescopic observations of stars, and on the apparent absence of what today would be called "Coriolis Effect" phenomena; both have been overlooked by the historical record (which paints a picture of the 126 arguments that little resembles them). Given the available scientific knowledge in 1651, a geo-heliocentric hypothesis clearly had real strength, but Riccioli presents it as mer

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.

Existing commercial search engines often struggle to represent different perspectives of a search query. Argument retrieval systems address this limitation of search engines and provide both positive (PRO) and negative (CON) perspectives about a user's information need on a controversial topic (e.g., climate change). The effectiveness of such argument retrieval systems is typically evaluated based on topical relevance and argument quality, without taking into account the often differing number of documents shown for the argument stances (PRO or CON). Therefore, systems may retrieve relevant passages, but with a biased exposure of arguments. In this work, we analyze a range of non-stochastic fairness-aware ranking and diversity metrics to evaluate the extent to which argument stances are fairly exposed in argument retrieval systems. Using the official runs of the argument retrieval task Touché at CLEF 2020, as well as synthetic data to control the amount and order of argument stances in the rankings, we show that systems with the best effectiveness in terms of topical relevance are not necessarily the most fair or the most diverse in terms of argument stance. The relationships we fo

As the field of healthcare increasingly adopts artificial intelligence, it becomes important to understand which types of explanations increase transparency and empower users to develop confidence and trust in the predictions made by machine learning (ML) systems. In shared decision-making scenarios where doctors cooperate with ML systems to reach an appropriate decision, establishing mutual trust is crucial. In this paper, we explore different approaches to generating explanations in eXplainable AI (XAI) and make their underlying arguments explicit so that they can be evaluated by medical experts. In particular, we present the findings of a user study conducted with physicians to investigate their perceptions of various types of AI-generated explanations in the context of diagnostic decision support. The study aims to identify the most effective and useful explanations that enhance the diagnostic process. In the study, medical doctors filled out a survey to assess different types of explanations. Further, an interview was carried out post-survey to gain qualitative insights on the requirements of explanations incorporated in diagnostic decision support. Overall, the insights gaine

Computational Argumentation in general and Argument Mining in particular are important research fields. In previous works, many of the challenges to automatically extract and to some degree reason over natural language arguments were addressed. The tools to extract argument units are increasingly available and further open problems can be addressed. In this work, we are presenting the task of Aspect-Based Argument Mining (ABAM), with the essential subtasks of Aspect Term Extraction (ATE) and Nested Segmentation (NS). At the first instance, we create and release an annotated corpus with aspect information on the token-level. We consider aspects as the main point(s) argument units are addressing. This information is important for further downstream tasks such as argument ranking, argument summarization and generation, as well as the search for counter-arguments on the aspect-level. We present several experiments using state-of-the-art supervised architectures and demonstrate their performance for both of the subtasks. The annotated benchmark is available at https://github.com/trtm/ABAM.

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 argument's 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.