Quantitative Argument Summarization and Beyond: Cross-Domain Key Point Analysis

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.

[1]  Graeme Hirst,et al.  Argumentation Mining in Parliamentary Discourse , 2015, PRIMA Workshops.

[2]  Noam Slonim,et al.  A Large-scale Dataset for Argument Quality Ranking: Construction and Analysis , 2019, AAAI.

[3]  Kevin Gimpel,et al.  ALBERT: A Lite BERT for Self-supervised Learning of Language Representations , 2019, ICLR.

[4]  Jan Snajder,et al.  Back up your Stance: Recognizing Arguments in Online Discussions , 2014, ArgMining@ACL.

[5]  Yiming Yang,et al.  XLNet: Generalized Autoregressive Pretraining for Language Understanding , 2019, NeurIPS.

[6]  Lukasz Kaiser,et al.  Generating Wikipedia by Summarizing Long Sequences , 2018, ICLR.

[7]  Regina Barzilay,et al.  Multiple Aspect Ranking Using the Good Grief Algorithm , 2007, NAACL.

[8]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Example Selection for Bootstrapping Statistical Parsers , 2003, NAACL.

[9]  Maria Leonor Pacheco,et al.  of the Association for Computational Linguistics: , 2001 .

[10]  Omer Levy,et al.  RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach , 2019, ArXiv.

[11]  Ming-Wei Chang,et al.  BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding , 2019, NAACL.

[12]  Brendan T. O'Connor,et al.  Cheap and Fast – But is it Good? Evaluating Non-Expert Annotations for Natural Language Tasks , 2008, EMNLP.

[13]  Advaith Siddharthan,et al.  Summarising the points made in online political debates , 2016, ArgMining@ACL.

[14]  Ivan Titov,et al.  A Joint Model of Text and Aspect Ratings for Sentiment Summarization , 2008, ACL.

[15]  Benno Stein,et al.  Modeling Frames in Argumentation , 2019, EMNLP.

[16]  Amita Misra,et al.  Measuring the Similarity of Sentential Arguments in Dialogue , 2016, SIGDIAL Conference.

[17]  David Evans,et al.  Tracking and summarizing news on a daily basis with Columbia's Newsblaster , 2002 .

[18]  Iryna Gurevych,et al.  Classification and Clustering of Arguments with Contextualized Word Embeddings , 2019, ACL.

[19]  Jiawei Han,et al.  Opinosis: A Graph Based Approach to Abstractive Summarization of Highly Redundant Opinions , 2010, COLING.

[20]  Michal Jacovi,et al.  Automatic Argument Quality Assessment - New Datasets and Methods , 2019, EMNLP.

[21]  Omer Levy,et al.  GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding , 2018, BlackboxNLP@EMNLP.

[22]  Dragomir R. Radev,et al.  LexRank: Graph-based Lexical Centrality as Salience in Text Summarization , 2004, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[23]  Roy Bar-Haim,et al.  From Arguments to Key Points: Towards Automatic Argument Summarization , 2020, ACL.

[24]  Vincent Ng,et al.  Why are You Taking this Stance? Identifying and Classifying Reasons in Ideological Debates , 2014, EMNLP.

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