Abstract
Argument Mining (AM) aims at automatically identifying arguments and components of arguments in text, as well as at determining the relations between these arguments, on various annotated corpora using machine learning techniques (Lippi & Torroni, 2016).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
The sentence labelling is given here for ease of reference, and was not given to the annotators, who instead were presented with a monolithic, but short, text.
References
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M. C., & Livet, P. (2008). On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 23(10), 1062–1093.
Bosc, T., Cabrio, E., & Villata, S. (2016). Tweeties squabbling: Positive and negative results in applying argument mining on social media. In Computational models of argument COMMA (pp. 21–32).
Boser, B. E., Guyon, I. M., & Vapnik, V. N., (1992). A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Workshop on Computational Learning Theory. COLT ‘92, (pp. 144–152).
Bowman, S. R., Angeli, G., Potts, C., & Manning, C. D. (2015). A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5–32.
Cabrio, E., & Villata, S. (2013). A natural language bipolar argumentation approach to support users in online debate interac-tions. Argument & Computation, 4(3), 209–230.
Carstens, L., & Toni, F. (2015). Towards relation based argumentation mining. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining (pp. 29–34).
Carstens, L., & Toni, F. (2017). Using argumentation to improve classification in natural language problems. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 17(3), 30, 1–30, 23.
Cayrol, C., & Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C. (2005). On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In Symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty: 8th European conference (pp. 378–389).
Cerutti, F., Palmer, A., Rosenfeld, A., Snajder, J., & Toni, F. (2016). A pilot study in using argumentation frameworks for online debates. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Systems and Algorithms for Formal Argumentation (SAFA) (Vol. 1672, pp. 63–74). CEUR-WS.org.
Fleiss, J. L., et al. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378–382.
Ghosh, D., Muresan, S., Wacholder, N., Aakhus, M., & Mitsui, M. (2014). Analyzing argumentative discourse units in online interactions. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argument Mining (pp. 39–48).
Habernal, I., & Gurevych, I. (2016). What makes a convincing argument? empirical analysis and detecting attributes of convincingness in web argumentation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 1214–1223), EMNLP.
Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997). Long short-term memory. Neural Computation, 9(8), 1735–1780.
Koreeda, Y., Yanase, T., Yanai, K., Sato, M., & Niwa, Y. (2016). Neural attention model for classification of sentences that support promoting/suppressing relationship. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Argument Mining.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (second edition). Sage Publications.
Lippi, Marco, & Torroni, Paolo. (2016). Argumentation mining: State of the art and emerging trends. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 16(2), 10.
Peldszus, A., & Stede, M. (2013). Ranking the annotators: An agreement study on argumentation structure. In: Proceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation Workshop and Interoperability with Discourse (pp. 196–204).
Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. D. (2014). Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP) (pp. 1532–1543).
Salah, Z., Coenen, F., & Grossi, D. (2013). Extracting debate graphs from parliamentary transcripts: A study directed at uk house of commons debates. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (pp. 121–130).
Stab, C., & Gurevych, I. (2016). Parsing argumentation structures in persuasive essays. CoRR abs/1604.07370.
Wachsmuth, H., Stein, B., & Ajjour, Y. (2017). “PageRank” for argument relevance. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL 17) (pp. 1116–1126).
Walker, M. A., Tree, J. E. F., Anand, P., Abbott, R., & King, J. (2012). A corpus for research on deliberation and debate. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC (pp. 812–817).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cocarascu, O., Toni, F. (2020). Deploying Machine Learning Classifiers for Argumentative Relations “in the Wild”. In: van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B. (eds) From Argument Schemes to Argumentative Relations in the Wild. Argumentation Library, vol 35. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28367-4_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28367-4_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28366-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28367-4
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)