Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Argument Mining 2021
DOI: 10.18653/v1/2021.argmining-1.19
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Key Point Analysis via Contrastive Learning and Extractive Argument Summarization

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 summarizati… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We use pair classification for our models in KPM experiments, which gives better results than contrastive learning. For KPM, we select 5 best results from Friedman et al (2021): SMatchToPR (Alshomary et al, 2021) and MatchTstm (Phan et al, 2021) use contrastive learning; NLP@UIT, Enigma (Kapadnis et al, 2021) andModernTalk (Reimer et al, 2021) use pair classification. For CESC, we select the results of both approaches mentioned in Cheng et al (2022).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We use pair classification for our models in KPM experiments, which gives better results than contrastive learning. For KPM, we select 5 best results from Friedman et al (2021): SMatchToPR (Alshomary et al, 2021) and MatchTstm (Phan et al, 2021) use contrastive learning; NLP@UIT, Enigma (Kapadnis et al, 2021) andModernTalk (Reimer et al, 2021) use pair classification. For CESC, we select the results of both approaches mentioned in Cheng et al (2022).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our approach, based on topic modeling and enhanced by hyperparameter tuning, not only segments the data space but also approximates the frequency of statements associated with each key point, filling a gap in previous KPG methodologies (Bar-Haim et al, 2021 ). Our decision to adopt an abstractive summarization approach, as opposed to traditional extractive methods (Bar-Haim et al, 2020b , 2021 ; Alshomary et al, 2021 ), proved advantageous. It allowed for a broader semantic representation within key points, capturing different aspects of a subtopic more effectively.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, following the ArgMining Workshop 2021, a corresponding training and evaluation data set (Friedman et al, 2021 ) was published, explicitly designed for the development of new KPA methods. Based on this data set, further extractive approaches of KPG have been developed, which solve the problem via a graph-based method (Alshomary et al, 2021 ) or via the selection of representative key point candidates with the help of a combination of the evaluation metric MoverScore (Zhao et al, 2019 ) and the maximal marginal relevance (MMR) based on word embeddings of the statements (Shirafuji et al, 2021 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…SMatchToPageRank (hereafter as SMatch-ToPR) (Alshomary et al, 2021) aims to learn an embedding space where matching argument-KP pairs are closer than non-matching pairs. This model has two inputs: (1) the argument; and (2) the concatenation of the KP and the topic.…”
Section: Matching Trackmentioning
confidence: 99%