Argumentation mining

Abstract

Argumentation is the process by which arguments are constructed and handled. Argumentation constitutes a major component of human intelligence. The ability to engage in argumentation is essential for humans to understand new problems, to perform scientific reasoning, to express, to clarify and to defend their opinions in their daily lives. Argumentation mining aims to detect the arguments presented in a text document, the relations between them and the internal structure of each individual argument. In this paper we analyse the main research questions when dealing with argumentation mining and the different methods we have studied and developed in order to successfully confront the challenges of argumentation mining in legal texts.

The Argument Web: an Online Ecosystem of Tools, Systems and Services for Argumentation

“…Though Palau and Moens (2011) offer a good introduction, the field is moving so quickly that the best reviews of the area are currently offered by the tables of contents of the 2014, 2015 and 2016 ACL workshops on Argument Mining (see argmining2016.arg.tech). Pease et al (2017) show how AI techniques for understanding abstract argumentation and its connections to structured argumentation, linguistic expression of reasoning and dialogical practice can work together in a complete cycle, from real-world argument to philosophical account, formal theory, abstract argumentation and argumentation semantics, and back to application to real-world argument.…”

Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining

“…For instance, Mochales-Palau and Moens (2011) identify arguments in legal documents, focus on the identification of argumentation schemes (Walton, 1996) in newspapers and court cases, Florou et al (2013) apply argumentation mining in policy modeling, and present an approach to model arguments in persuasive essays. Most of the approaches focus on the identification and classification of argument components.…”

“…Mochales- Palau and Moens (2011) report an IAA of Cohen's κ = 0.75 (legal documents) but only for the identification of argument components (here claims and premises) and not for argumentative relations. report an IAA of Fleiss' π = 0.8 for argumentative support and attack relations in persuasive essays.…”

“…To date, researchers have investigated methods for argumentation mining of legal documents (Mochales and Moens 2011;Bach et al 2013;Ashley and Walker 2013;Wyner et al 2010), on-line debates (Cabrio and Villata 2012), product reviews (Villalba and Saint-Dizier 2012;, user comments on proposed regulations , newspaper articles and court cases . A related older strand of research (that uses the term 'argumentative structure' in a related but different sense than ours) has investigated automatically classifying the sentences of a scientific article's abstract or full text in terms of their contribution of new knowledge to a field (e.g., Liakata et al 2012, Teufel 2010, Mizuta et al 2005).…”

“…Argumentation mining aims at automatically identifying arguments and argumentative relations in argumentative discourse, e.g., in newspaper articles Florou et al, 2013), legal documents (Mochales- Palau and Moens, 2011), or scientific publications. Many applications, such as text summarization, information retrieval, or faceted search could benefit from a fine-grained analysis of the argumentation structure, making the reasoning process directly visible.…”