Recent work has addressed the problem of detecting relevant claims for a given controversial topic. We introduce the complementary task of claim stance classification, along with the first benchmark dataset for this task. We decompose this problem into: (a) open-domain target identification for topic and claim (b) sentiment classification for each target, and (c) open-domain contrast detection between the topic and the claim targets. Manual annotation of the dataset confirms the applicability and validity of our model. We describe an implementation of our model, focusing on a novel algorithm for contrast detection. Our approach achieves promising results, and is shown to outperform several baselines, which represent the common practice of applying a single, monolithic classifier for stance classification.

Generating a concise summary from a large collection of arguments on a given topic is an intriguing yet understudied problem. We propose to represent such summaries as a small set of talking points, termed key points, each scored according to its salience. We show, by analyzing a large dataset of crowd-contributed arguments, that a small number of key points per topic is typically sufficient for covering the vast majority of the arguments. Furthermore, we found that a domain expert can often predict these key points in advance. We study the task of argument-to-key point mapping, and introduce a novel large-scale dataset for this task. We report empirical results for an extensive set of experiments with this dataset, showing promising performance.

No abstract

We present a new framework for textual entailment, which provides a modular integration between knowledge-based exact inference and cost-based approximate matching. Diverse types of knowledge are uniformly represented as entailment rules, which were acquired both manually and automatically. Our proof system operates directly on parse trees, and infers new trees by applying entailment rules, aiming to strictly generate the target hypothesis from the source text. In order to cope with inevitable knowledge gaps, a cost function is used to measure the remaining "distance" from the hypothesis.

When summarizing a collection of views, arguments or opinions on some topic, it is often desirable not only to extract the most salient points, but also to quantify their prevalence. Work on multi-document summarization has traditionally focused on creating textual summaries, which lack this quantitative aspect. Recent work has proposed to summarize arguments by mapping them to a small set of expert-generated key points, where the salience of each key point corresponds to the number of its matching arguments. The current work advances key point analysis in two important respects: first, we develop a method for automatic extraction of key points, which enables fully automatic analysis, and is shown to achieve performance comparable to a human expert. Second, we demonstrate that the applicability of key point analysis goes well beyond argumentation data. Using models trained on publicly available argumentation datasets, we achieve promising results in two additional domains: municipal surveys and user reviews. An additional contribution is an in-depth evaluation of argument-to-key point matching models, where we substantially outperform previous results.