Attention mechanisms have seen some success for natural language processing downstream tasks in recent years and generated new Stateof-the-Art results. A thorough evaluation of the attention mechanism for the task of Argumentation Mining is missing, though. With this paper, we report a comparative evaluation of attention layers in combination with a bidirectional long short-term memory network, which is the current state-of-the-art approach to the unit segmentation task. We also compare sentence-level contextualized word embeddings to pre-generated ones. Our findings suggest that for this task the additional attention layer does not improve upon a less complex approach. In most cases, the contextualized embeddings do also not show an improvement on the baseline score.

No abstract

Key point analysis is the task of extracting a set of concise and high-level statements from a given collection of arguments, representing the gist of these arguments. This paper presents our proposed approach to the Key Point Analysis shared task, collocated with the 8th Workshop on Argument Mining. The approach integrates two complementary components. One component employs contrastive learning via a siamese neural network for matching arguments to key points; the other is a graph-based extractive summarization model for generating key points. In both automatic and manual evaluation, our approach was ranked best among all submissions to the shared task.

Word embedding models reflect bias towards genders, ethnicities, and other social groups present in the underlying training data. Metrics such as ECT, RNSB, and WEAT quantify bias in these models based on predefined word lists representing social groups and bias-conveying concepts. How suitable these lists actually are to reveal bias - let alone the bias metrics in general - remains unclear, though. In this paper, we study how to assess the quality of bias metrics for word embedding models. In particular, we present a generic method, Bias Silhouette Analysis (BSA), that quantifies the accuracy and robustness of such a metric and of the word lists used. Given a biased and an unbiased reference embedding model, BSA applies the metric systematically for several subsets of the lists to the models. The variance and rate of convergence of the bias values of each model then entail the robustness of the word lists, whereas the distance between the models' values gives indications of the general accuracy of the metric with the word lists. We demonstrate the behavior of BSA on two standard embedding models for the three mentioned metrics with several word lists from existing research.

No abstract