Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards Automatic Argument Extraction and Visualization in a Deliberative Model of Online Consultations for Local Governments

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Databases and Information Systems (ADBIS 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 9809))

Abstract

Automatic extraction and visualization of arguments used in a long online discussion, especially if the discussion involves a large number of participants and spreads over several days, can be helpful to the people involved. The main benefit is that they do not have to read all entries to get to know the main topics being discussed and can refer to existing arguments instead of introducing them anew. Such discussions take place, i.e., on a deliberative platform being developed under the ‘In Dialogue’ project. In this paper we propose a framework allowing for automatic extraction of arguments from deliberations and visualization. The framework assumes extraction of arguments and argument proposals, sentiment analysis to predict whether argument is negative or positive, classification to decide how the arguments are related and the use of ontology for visualization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.wdialogu.uw.edu.pl/en/.

  2. 2.

    We will use the term proposal in the paper that means the concept of thesis, proposal and solution.

References

  1. Argument Mapping, http://www.austhink.com/critical/pages/argument_mapping.html

  2. Bex, F., Lawrence, J., Snaith, M., Reed, C.: Implementing the argument web. Commun. ACM 56(10), 66–73 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Budzynska, K., Janier, M., Kang, J., Reed, C., Saint-Dizier, P., Stede, M., Yaskorska, O.: Towards argument mining from dialogue. In: COMMA, pp. 185–196 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cabrio, E., Villata, S.: Combining textual entailment and argumentation theory for supporting online debates interactions. In: Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Short Papers, vol. 2, pp. 208–212. Association for Computational Linguistics (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Carneades tools for argument (re)construction, evaluation, mapping and interchange. http://carneades.github.io/

  6. Chesñevar, C., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., McGinnis, J., Vreeswijk, G., Willmott, S.: Towards an argument interchange format. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 21(04), 293–316 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cuong, N.V., Chandrasekaran, M.K., Kan, M.Y., Lee, W.S.: Scholarly document information extraction using extensible features for efficient higher order semi-CRFs. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM/IEEE-CE on Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, pp. 61–64. ACM (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Feldman, R.: Techniques and applications for sentiment analysis. Commun. ACM 56(4), 82–89 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ghosh, D., Muresan, S., Wacholder, N., Aakhus, M., Mitsui, M.: Analyzing argumentative discourse units in online interactions. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining, pp. 39–48 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gordon, T.F., Walton, D.N.: The Carneades argumentation framework - using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.B.C. (eds.) Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA-06, pp. 195–207. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (2007)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Green, N.: Towards creation of a corpus for argumentation mining the biomedical genetics research literature. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining, pp. 11–18 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gürkan, A., Iandoli, L., Klein, M., Zollo, G.: Mediating debate through on-line large-scale argumentation: evidence from the field. Inform. Sci. 180(19), 3686–3702 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lafferty, J., McCallum, A., Pereira, F.C.: Conditional random fields: probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Liu, B.: Sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Synth. Lect. Hum. Lang. Technol. 5(1), 1–167 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., McLaren, B.M.: Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state of the art. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collaborative Learn. 5(1), 43–102 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Schneider, D.C., Voigt, C., Betz, G.: Argunet - a software tool for collaborative argumentation analysis and research. In: 7th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA VII) (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Socher, R., Huang, E.H., Pennin, J., Manning, C. D., Ng, A.Y.:Dynamic pooling and unfolding recursive autoencoders for paraphrase detection. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 801–809 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Socher, R., Perelygin, A., Wu, J.Y., Chuang, J., Manning, C.D., Ng, A.Y., Potts, C.: 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, p. 1642 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Suthers, D.D.: Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In: Andriessen, J., Baker, M., Suthers, D. (eds.) Arguing to Learn, pp. 27–46. Springer, Netherlands (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Sutton, C., McCallum, A.: Piecewise training for undirected models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1207.1409 (2012)

  22. Trevisan, B., Jakobs, E.M., Dickmeis, E., Niehr, T.: Indicators of argument-conclusion relationships. An approach for argumentation mining in german discourses. In: ACL 2014, 176, 104 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Van Gelder, T.: Enhancing deliberation through computer supported argument visualization. Visualizing argumentation, pp. 97–115. Springer, London (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Villalba, M.P.G., Saint-Dizier, P.: Some facets of argument mining for opinion analysis. COMMA 245, 23–34 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wyner, A., Schneider, J., Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.: Semi-automated argumentative analysis of online product reviews. COMMA 245, 43–50 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Zhang, W., Ahmed, A., Yang, J., Josifovski, V., Smola, A.J.: Annotating needles in the haystack without looking: product information extraction from emails. In: Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 2257–2266. ACM (2015)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Computer Science, Warsaw University of Technology, Nowowiejska 15/19, 00-665, Warsaw, Poland

    Robert Bembenik & Piotr Andruszkiewicz

Authors
  1. Robert Bembenik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Piotr Andruszkiewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Bembenik .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. MFF, Charles University MFF, Prague, Czech Republic

    Jaroslav Pokorný

  2. Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad Faculty of Sciences, Novi Sad, Serbia

    Mirjana Ivanović

  3. Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel , Kiel, Germany

    Bernhard Thalheim

  4. VSB-Technical University Ostrava , Ostrava, Czech Republic

    Petr Šaloun

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Bembenik, R., Andruszkiewicz, P. (2016). Towards Automatic Argument Extraction and Visualization in a Deliberative Model of Online Consultations for Local Governments. In: Pokorný, J., Ivanović, M., Thalheim, B., Šaloun, P. (eds) Advances in Databases and Information Systems. ADBIS 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9809. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44039-2_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44039-2_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44038-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-44039-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation