GRASP: Rich Patterns for Argumentation Mining

GRASP (GReedy Augmented Sequential Patterns) is an algorithm for automatically extracting patterns that characterize subtle linguistic phenomena. To that end, GRASP augments each term of input text with multiple layers of linguistic information. These different facets of the text terms are systematically combined to reveal rich patterns. We report highly promising experimental results in several challenging text analysis tasks within the field of Argumentation Mining. We believe that GRASP is general enough to be useful for other domains too. For example, each of the following sentences includes a claim for a [topic]: 1. Opponents often argue that the open primary is unconstitutional. [Open Primaries] 2. Prof. Smith suggested that affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of the chosen. [Affirmative Action] 3. The majority stated that the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to offend others. [Freedom of Speech] These sentences share almost no words in common, however, they are similar at a more abstract level. A human observer may notice the following underlying common structure, or pattern: [someone][argue/suggest/state][that][topic term][sentiment term]. GRASP aims to automatically capture such underlying structures of the given data. For the above examples it finds the pattern [noun][express][that][noun,topic][sentiment], where [express] stands for all its (in)direct hyponyms, and [noun,topic] means a noun which is also related to the topic.

[1]  Ellen Riloff,et al.  Learning Extraction Patterns for Subjective Expressions , 2003, EMNLP.

[2]  Raymond J. Mooney,et al.  Bottom-Up Relational Learning of Pattern Matching Rules for Information Extraction , 2003, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[3]  Quoc V. Le,et al.  A Neural Conversational Model , 2015, ArXiv.

[4]  Bing Liu,et al.  Mining Comparative Sentences and Relations , 2006, AAAI.

[5]  Noam Slonim,et al.  A Benchmark Dataset for Automatic Detection of Claims and Evidence in the Context of Controversial Topics , 2014, ArgMining@ACL.

[6]  Daniel Jurafsky,et al.  Learning Syntactic Patterns for Automatic Hypernym Discovery , 2004, NIPS.

[7]  Thomas M. Cover,et al.  Elements of Information Theory (Wiley Series in Telecommunications and Signal Processing) , 2006 .

[8]  Christiane Fellbaum,et al.  Book Reviews: WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database , 1999, CL.

[9]  Andrew McCallum,et al.  A comparison of event models for naive bayes text classification , 1998, AAAI 1998.

[10]  Marie-Francine Moens,et al.  Argumentation mining: the detection, classification and structure of arguments in text , 2009, ICAIL.

[11]  Jeffrey Dean,et al.  Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality , 2013, NIPS.

[12]  Ramakrishnan Srikant,et al.  Mining sequential patterns , 1995, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Data Engineering.

[13]  Ralph Grishman,et al.  Unsupervised Discovery of Scenario-Level Patterns for Information Extraction , 2000, ANLP.

[14]  Noam Slonim,et al.  Context Dependent Claim Detection , 2014, COLING.

[15]  Thomas G. Dietterich.  What is machine learning? , 2020, Archives of Disease in Childhood.

[16]  Yoon Kim,et al.  Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentence Classification , 2014, EMNLP.

[17]  Jürgen Schmidhuber,et al.  Long Short-Term Memory , 1997, Neural Computation.

[18]  Marti A. Hearst.  Automatic Acquisition of Hyponyms from Large Text Corpora , 1992, COLING.

[19]  Bing Liu,et al.  Mining and summarizing customer reviews , 2004, KDD.

[20]  Paolo Torroni,et al.  Context-Independent Claim Detection for Argument Mining , 2015, IJCAI.

[21]  Paolo Torroni,et al.  Argumentation Mining , 2016, ACM Trans. Internet Techn..

[22]  Mitesh M. Khapra,et al.  Show Me Your Evidence - an Automatic Method for Context Dependent Evidence Detection , 2015, EMNLP.

[23]  Yoshua Bengio,et al.  Learning Phrase Representations using RNN Encoder–Decoder for Statistical Machine Translation , 2014, EMNLP.