Towards Automatic Argument Extraction and Visualization in a Deliberative Model of Online Consultations for Local Governments

Automatic extraction and visualization of arguments used in a long online discussion, especially if the discussion involves a large number of participants and spreads over several days, can be helpful to the people involved. The main benefit is that they do not have to read all entries to get to know the main topics being discussed and can refer to existing arguments instead of introducing them anew. Such discussions take place, i.e., on a deliberative platform being developed under the ‘In Dialogue’ project. In this paper we propose a framework allowing for automatic extraction of arguments from deliberations and visualization. The framework assumes extraction of arguments and argument proposals, sentiment analysis to predict whether argument is negative or positive, classification to decide how the arguments are related and the use of ontology for visualization.

[1]  Lei Zhang,et al.  Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining , 2017, Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining.

[2]  Nancy Green Towards Creation of a Corpus for Argumentation Mining the Biomedical Genetics Research Literature , 2014, ArgMining@ACL.

[3]  Tim van Gelder,et al.  Enhancing Deliberation Through Computer Supported Argument Visualization , 2003, Visualizing Argumentation.

[4]  Alexander J. Smola,et al.  Annotating Needles in the Haystack without Looking: Product Information Extraction from Emails , 2015, KDD.

[5]  Patrick Saint-Dizier,et al.  Some Facets of Argument Mining for Opinion Analysis , 2012, COMMA.

[6]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Semi-Automated Argumentative Analysis of Online Product Reviews , 2012, COMMA.

[7]  Jeffrey Pennington,et al.  Dynamic Pooling and Unfolding Recursive Autoencoders for Paraphrase Detection , 2011, NIPS.

[8]  Eva-Maria Jakobs,et al.  Indicators of Argument-conclusion Relationships. An Approach for Argumentation Mining in German Discourses , 2014, ArgMining@ACL.

[9]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Towards an argument interchange format , 2006, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[10]  Floris Bex,et al.  Implementing the argument web , 2013, Commun. ACM.

[11]  Mark Klein,et al.  Mediating debate through on-line large-scale argumentation: Evidence from the field , 2010, Inf. Sci..

[12]  Patrick Saint-Dizier,et al.  Towards Argument Mining from Dialogue , 2014, COMMA.

[13]  D. Suthers Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. , 2003 .

[14]  Ronen Feldman,et al.  Techniques and applications for sentiment analysis , 2013, CACM.

[15]  Nina Wacholder,et al.  Analyzing Argumentative Discourse Units in Online Interactions , 2014, ArgMining@ACL.

[16]  Niels Pinkwart,et al.  Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning DOI 10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art , 2009 .

[17]  Min-Yen Kan,et al.  Scholarly Document Information Extraction using Extensible Features for Efficient Higher Order Semi-CRFs , 2015, JCDL.

[18]  Christopher Potts,et al.  Recursive Deep Models for Semantic Compositionality Over a Sentiment Treebank , 2013, EMNLP.

[19]  Serena Villata,et al.  Combining Textual Entailment and Argumentation Theory for Supporting Online Debates Interactions , 2012, ACL.

[20]  Douglas Walton,et al.  The Carneades Argumentation Framework - Using Presumptions and Exceptions to Model Critical Questions , 2006, COMMA.

[21]  Andrew McCallum,et al.  Conditional Random Fields: Probabilistic Models for Segmenting and Labeling Sequence Data , 2001, ICML.

[22]  Henry Prakken,et al.  The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof , 2007, Artif. Intell..