Argument mining has focused so far mainly on the identification, extraction, and formalization of arguments. An important yet unaddressedtask consists in the prediction of the argumentative behavior of stakeholders in a debate. Predicting the argumentative behavior in advance can support foreseeing issues in public policy making or help recognize potential disagreements early on and help to resolve them. In this paper, we consider the novel task of predicting the argumentative behavior of individual stakeholders. We present ARGENST, a framework that relies on a recommender-based architecture to predict the stance and the argumentative main point on a specific controversial topic for a given stakeholder, which is described in terms of a profile including properties related to demographic attributes, religious and political orientation, socio-economic background, etc. We evaluate our approach on the well-known debate.org dataset in terms of accuracy for predicting stance as well as in terms of similarity of the generated arguments to the ground truth arguments using BERTScore. As part of a case study, we show how juries of members representing different stakeholder groups and perspectives can be assembled to simulate the public opinion on a given topic.

This paper describes the system and experimental results of an ensemble-based approach tomultilingual framing detection for the submission of the ACCEPT team to the SemEval-2023 Task 3 on Framing Detection (Subtask 2). The approach is based on an ensemble that combines three different methods: a classifier based on large language models, a classifier based on static word embeddings, and an approach that uses external commonsense knowledge graphs, in particular, ConceptNet. The results of the three classification heads are aggregated into an overall prediction for each frame class. Our best submission yielded a micro F1-score of 50.69% (rank 10) and a macro F1-score of 50.20% (rank 3) for English articles. Our experimental results show that static word embeddings and knowledge graphs are useful components for frame detection, while the ensemble of all three methods combines the strengths of our three proposed methods. Through system ablations, we show that the commonsenseguided knowledge graphs are the outperforming method for many languages.

Arguments often do not make explicit how a conclusion follows from its premises. To compensate for this lack, we enrich arguments with structured background knowledge to support knowledge-intense argumentation tasks. We present a new unsupervised method for constructing Contextualized Commonsense Knowledge Graphs (CCKGs) that selects contextually relevant knowledge from large knowledge graphs (KGs) efficiently and at high quality. Our work goes beyond context-insensitive knowledge extraction heuristics by computing semantic similarity between KG triplets and textual arguments. Using these triplet similarities as weights, we extract contextualized knowledge paths that connect a conclusion to its premise, while maximizing similarity to the argument. We combine multiple paths into a CCKG that we optionally prune to reduce noise and raise precision. Intrinsic evaluation of the quality of our graphs shows that our method is effective for (re)constructing human explanation graphs. Manual evaluations in a large-scale knowledge selection setup verify high recall and precision of implicit CSK in the CCKGs. Finally, we demonstrate the effectiveness of CCKGs in a knowledge-insensitive argument quality rating task, outperforming strong baselines and rivaling a GPT-3 based system.

Online discussions on controversial topics with many participants frequently include hundreds of arguments that cover different framings of the topic. But these arguments and frames are often spread across the various branches of the discussion tree structure. This makes it difficult for interested participants to follow the discussion in its entirety as well as to introduce new arguments. In this paper, we present a new rank-based approach to extractive summarization of online discussions focusing on argumentation frames that capture the different aspects of a discussion. Our approach includes three retrieval tasks to find arguments in a discussion that are (1) relevant to a frame of interest, (2) relevant to the topic under discussion, and (3) informative to the reader. Based on a joint ranking by these three criteria for a set of user-selected frames, our approach allows readers to quickly access an ongoing discussion. We evaluate our approach using a test set of 100 controversial Reddit ChangeMyView discussions, for which the relevance of a total of 1871 arguments was manually annotated.

Many annotation tasks in natural language processing are highly subjective in that there can be different valid and justified perspectives on what is a proper label for a given example. This also applies to the judgment of argument quality, where the assignment of a single ground truth is often questionable. At the same time, there are generally accepted concepts behind argumentation that form a common ground. To best represent the interplay of individual and shared perspectives, we consider a continuum of approaches ranging from models that fully aggregate perspectives into a majority label to “share nothing”-architectures in which each annotator is considered in isolation from all other annotators. In between these extremes, inspired by models used in the field of recommender systems, we investigate the extent to which architectures that predict labels for single annotators but include layers that model the relations between different annotators are beneficial. By means of two tasks of argument quality classification (argument concreteness and validity/novelty of conclusions), we show that recommender architectures increase the averaged annotator-individual F1-scores up to 43% over a majority-label model. Our findings indicate that approaches to subjectivity can benefit from relating individual perspectives.

Framing is an important mechanism in argumentation, as participants in a debate tend to emphasize those aspects or dimensions of the issue under debate that support their standpoint. The task of reframing an argument, that is changing the underlying framing, has received increasing attention recently. We propose a novel unsupervised approach to argument reframing that takes inspiration from counterfactual explanation generation approaches in the field of eXplainable AI (XAI). We formalize the task as a mask-and-replace approach in which an LLM is tasked to replace masked tokens associated with a set of frames to be eliminated by other tokens related to a set of target frames to be added. Our method relies on two key mechanisms: framed decoding and reranking based on a number of metrics similar to those used in XAI to search for a suitable counterfactual. We evaluate our approach on three topics using the dataset by Ruckdeschel and Wiedemann (2022). We show that our two key mechanisms outperform an unguided LLM as a baseline by increasing the ratio of successfully reframed arguments by almost an order of magnitude.

We address the problem of automatically predicting the quality of a conclusion given a set of (textual) premises of an argument, focusing in particular on the task of predicting the validity and novelty of the argumentative conclusion. We propose a multi-task approach that jointly predicts the validity and novelty of the textual conclusion, relying on pre-trained language models fine-tuned on the task. As training data for this task is scarce and costly to obtain, we experimentally investigate the impact of data augmentation approaches for improving the accuracy of prediction compared to a baseline that relies on task-specific data only. We consider the generation of synthetic data as well as the integration of datasets from related argument tasks. We show that especially our synthetic data, combined with class-balancing and instance-specific learning rates, substantially improves classification results (+15.1 points in F₁-score). Using only training data retrieved from related datasets by automatically labeling them for validity and novelty, combined with synthetic data, outperforms the baseline by 11.5 points in F₁-score.

This paper provides an overview of the Argument Validity and Novelty Prediction Shared Task that was organized as part of the 9th Workshop on Argument Mining (ArgMining 2022). The task focused on the prediction of the validity and novelty of a conclusion given a textual premise. Validity is defined as the degree to which the conclusion is justified with respect to the given premise. Novelty defines the degree to which the conclusion contains content that is new in relation to the premise. Six groups participated in the task, submitting overall 13 system runs for the subtask of binary classification and 2 system runs for the subtask of relative classification. The results reveal that the task is challenging, with best results obtained for Validity prediction in the range of 75% F1 score, for Novelty prediction of 70% F1 score and for correctly predicting both Validity and Novelty of 45% F1 score. In this paper we summarize the task definition and dataset. We give an overview of the results obtained by the participating systems, as well as insights to be gained from the diverse contributions.

When assessing the similarity of arguments, researchers typically use approaches that do not provide interpretable evidence or justifications for their ratings. Hence, the features that determine argument similarity remain elusive. We address this issue by introducing novel argument similarity metrics that aim at high performance and explainability. We show that Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) graphs can be useful for representing arguments, and that novel AMR graph metrics can offer explanations for argument similarity ratings. We start from the hypothesis that similar premises often lead to similar conclusions—and extend an approach for AMR-based argument similarity rating by estimating, in addition, the similarity of conclusions that we automatically infer from the arguments used as premises. We show that AMR similarity metrics make argument similarity judgements more interpretable and may even support argument quality judgements. Our approach provides significant performance improvements over strong baselines in a fully unsupervised setting. Finally, we make first steps to address the problem of reference-less evaluation of argumentative conclusion generations.

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, colocated 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 summarization model for generating key points. In both automatic and manual evaluation, our approach was ranked best among all submissions to the shared task.