Thank you very much for downloading the uses of argument. Maybe you have knowledge that, people have search numerous times for their chosen novels like this the uses of argument, but end up in infectious downloads. Rather than reading a good book with a cup of tea in the afternoon, instead they juggled with some malicious bugs inside their computer. the uses of argument is available in our digital library an online access to it is set as public so you can download it instantly. Our digital library hosts in multiple locations, allowing you to get the most less latency time to download any of our books like this one. Merely said, the the uses of argument is universally compatible with any devices to read.

The Uses Of Argument

Argument mining is the automatic identification and extraction of the structure of inference and reasoning expressed as arguments presented in natural language. Understanding argumentative structur...

/pdf/argument-mining-a-survey-3wuf60zrvp.pdf

Argument Mining: A Survey

Research on computational argumentation faces the problem of how to automatically assess the quality of an argument or argumentation. While different quality dimensions have been approached in natural language processing, a common understanding of argumentation quality is still missing. This paper presents the first holistic work on computational argumentation quality in natural language. We comprehensively survey the diverse existing theories and approaches to assess logical, rhetorical, and dialectical quality dimensions, and we derive a systematic taxonomy from these. In addition, we provide a corpus with 320 arguments, annotated for all 15 dimensions in the taxonomy. Our results establish a common ground for research on computational argumentation quality assessment.

/pdf/computational-argumentation-quality-assessment-in-natural-p5lw1778zx.pdf

Computational Argumentation Quality Assessment in Natural Language

Computational argumentation is expected to play a critical role in the future of web search. To make this happen, many search-related questions must be revisited, such as how people query for arguments, how to mine arguments from the web, or how to rank them. In this paper, we develop an argument search framework for studying these and further questions. The framework allows for the composition of approaches to acquiring, mining, assessing, indexing, querying, retrieving, ranking, and presenting arguments while relying on standard infrastructure and interfaces. Based on the framework, we build a prototype search engine, called args, that relies on an initial, freely accessible index of nearly 300k arguments crawled from reliable web resources. The framework and the argument search engine are intended as an environment for collaborative research on computational argumentation and its practical evaluation.

/pdf/building-an-argument-search-engine-for-the-web-4x0e2oy54r.pdf

Building an Argument Search Engine for the Web

Argument mining is a core technology for automating argument search in large document collections. Despite its usefulness for this task, most current approaches are designed for use only with specific text types and fall short when applied to heterogeneous texts. In this paper, we propose a new sentential annotation scheme that is reliably applicable by crowd workers to arbitrary Web texts. We source annotations for over 25,000 instances covering eight controversial topics. We show that integrating topic information into bidirectional long short-term memory networks outperforms vanilla BiLSTMs by more than 3 percentage points in F1 in two- and three-label cross-topic settings. We also show that these results can be further improved by leveraging additional data for topic relevance using multi-task learning.

/pdf/cross-topic-argument-mining-from-heterogeneous-sources-3ux64k0e0w.pdf

Cross-topic Argument Mining from Heterogeneous Sources

The segmentation of an argumentative text into argument units and their non-argumentative counterparts is the first step in identifying the argumentative structure of the text. Despite its importance for argument mining, unit segmentation has been approached only sporadically so far. This paper studies the major parameters of unit segmentation systematically. We explore the effectiveness of various features, when capturing words separately, along with their neighbors, or even along with the entire text. Each such context is reflected by one machine learning model that we evaluate within and across three domains of texts. Among the models, our new deep learning approach capturing the entire text turns out best within all domains, with an F-score of up to 88.54. While structural features generalize best across domains, the domain transfer remains hard, which points to major challenges of unit segmentation.

/pdf/unit-segmentation-of-argumentative-texts-krqqh51nm3.pdf

Unit Segmentation of Argumentative Texts

Argument search is the study of search engine technology that can retrieve arguments for potentially controversial topics or claims upon user request. The design of an argument search engine is tied to its underlying argument acquisition paradigm. More specifically, the employed paradigm controls the trade-off between retrieval precision and recall and thus determines basic search characteristics: Compiling an exhaustive argument corpus offline benefits precision at the expense of recall, whereas retrieving arguments from the web on-the-fly benefits recall at the expense of precision. This paper presents the new corpus of our argument search engine args.me, which follows the former paradigm. We freely provide the corpus to the community. With 387 606 arguments it is one of the largest argument resources available so far. In a qualitative analysis, we compare the args.me corpus acquisition paradigm to that of two other argument search engines, and we report first empirical insights into how people search with args.me.

Data Acquisition for Argument Search: The args.me Corpus

In argumentation, framing is used to emphasize a specific aspect of a controversial topic while concealing others. When talking about legalizing drugs, for instance, its economical aspect may be emphasized. In general, we call a set of arguments that focus on the same aspect a frame. An argumentative text has to serve the “right” frame(s) to convince the audience to adopt the author’s stance (e.g., being pro or con legalizing drugs). More specifically, an author has to choose frames that fit the audience’s cultural background and interests. This paper introduces frame identification, which is the task of splitting a set of arguments into non-overlapping frames. We present a fully unsupervised approach to this task, which first removes topical information and then identifies frames using clustering. For evaluation purposes, we provide a corpus with 12, 326 debate-portal arguments, organized along the frames of the debates’ topics. On this corpus, our approach outperforms different strong baselines, achieving an F1-score of 0.28.

/pdf/modeling-frames-in-argumentation-p2n2jhjyyo.pdf

Modeling Frames in Argumentation

Future search engines are expected to deliver pro and con arguments in response to queries on controversial topics. While argument mining is now in the focus of research, the question of how to retrieve the relevant arguments remains open. This paper proposes a radical model to assess relevance objectively at web scale: the relevance of an argument’s conclusion is decided by what other arguments reuse it as a premise. We build an argument graph for this model that we analyze with a recursive weighting scheme, adapting key ideas of PageRank. In experiments on a large ground-truth argument graph, the resulting relevance scores correlate with human average judgments. We outline what natural language challenges must be faced at web scale in order to stepwise bring argument relevance to web search engines.

Yamen Ajjour

Papers

Building an Argument Search Engine for the Web

Unit Segmentation of Argumentative Texts

Data Acquisition for Argument Search: The args.me Corpus

Modeling Frames in Argumentation

"PageRank" for Argument Relevance