Detecting logical argumentation in text via communicative discourse tree

References

• Amgoud L., Besnard P., Hunter A. (2015). Representing and reasoning about arguments mined from texts and dialogues. In S. Destercke & T. Denoeux (Eds.), Symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty. ECSQARU 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, (Vol. 9161). Springer, Cham.
   Google Scholar
• Baroni, P., & Giacomin, M. (2002). Argumentation through a distributed self-stabilizing approach. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 14, 4, 273–301.10.1080/09528130110116642
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baroni, P., Caminada, M., & Giacomin, M. (2011). An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowledge Engineering Review, 26(4), 365–410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bedi, P., & Vashisth, P. (2015). Argumentation-enabled interest-based personalised recommender system. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 27(2), 199–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biran, O., & Rambow, O. (2011). Identifying justifications in written dialogs by classifying text as argumentative. International Journal of Semantic Computing, 5(4), 363–381.10.1142/S1793351X11001328
   Google Scholar
• Bondarenko, A., Dung, P., Kowalski, R., & Toni, F. (1997). An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93, 63–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britt, A. M., & Larson, A. A. (2003). Constructing representations of arguments. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(4), 794–810.10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00002-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cabrio, E., & Villata, S. 2012. Combining textual entailment and argumentation theory for supporting online debates interactions. Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL. Short Papers - V 2 (pp. 208–212). Jeju Island, Korea.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, L., Marcu, D., & Okurowski, M. E. (2001). Building a discourse-tagged corpus in the framework of rhetorical structure theory. Proceedings of the Second SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue (pp. 1–10). Stroudsburg PA USA.
   Google Scholar
• Carreyrou, J. (2016). Hot startup Theranos has struggled with its blood-test technology. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-has-struggled-with-blood-tests-1444881901#livefyre-comment
   Google Scholar
• Castellucci, G., Vanzo, A., Croce, D., & Basili, R. (2015). Context-aware Models for Twitter Sentiment Analysis. IJCoL vol. 1, n. 1 December 2015. December 2015: Emerging Topics at the First Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 379–383). Piza Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Cristea, D. (1998). Formal proofs in incremental discourse processing and veins theory. Research Report TR98 – Dept. of Computer Science. Iaşi: University ‘A.I.Cuza’.
   Google Scholar
• Damer, T. E. (2009). Attacking faulty reasoning: A practical guide to fallacy-free reasoning. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Das, D., Chen, D., Martins, A. F. T., Schneider, N., & Smith, N. A. (2014). Frame-semantic parsing. Computational Linguistics, 40(1), 9–56.10.1162/COLI_a_00163
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321–357.10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eckle-Kohler, J., Kluge, R., & Gurevych, I. (2015). On the role of discourse markers for discriminating claims and premises in argumentative discourse. Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Lisbon, Portugal.
   Google Scholar
• Feng, V. W., & Hirst, G. (2011). Classifying arguments by scheme. In Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 987996). Portland, OR.
   Google Scholar
• Feng, V. W., & Hirst, G. (2014, June). A linear-time bottom-up discourse parser with constraints and post-editing. Proceedings of the 52nd Annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (ACL 2014), Baltimore.
   Google Scholar
• Ferretti, E., Errecalde, M. L, García, A. J., & Simari, G. R. (2014). A possibilistic defeasible logic programming approach to argumentation-based decision-making. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 26(4), 519–550.10.1080/0952813X.2014.921733
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Florou, E., Konstantopoulos, S., Koukourikos, A., & Karampiperis, P. (2013). Argument extraction for supporting public policy formulation. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Language Technology for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, and Humanities (pp. 49–54). Sophia Bulgaria: ACL.
   Google Scholar
• Galitsky, B. (2012). Machine learning of syntactic parse trees for search and classification of text. Engineering Application of AI, 26(3), 1072–1091.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galitsky, B. (2014). Learning parse structure of paragraphs and its applications in search. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 32, 160–184.10.1016/j.engappai.2014.02.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galitsky, B. (2016). Theory of mind engine. In Computational Autism. London: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-39972-0
   Google Scholar
• Galitsky, B. (2017). Discovering rhetorical agreement between a request and response. Dialogue & Discourse, 8(2), 167–205.
   Google Scholar
• Galitsky, B. (2018). Building dialogue structure from discourse tree of a question. AAAI2018-DEEP DIALWorkshop, New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• Galitsky, B., De La Rosa, J. L., & Dobrocsi, G. (2012). Inferring the semantic properties of sentences by mining syntactic parse trees. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 81, 21–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galitsky, B., & Ilvovsky, D. (2017). On a chat bot finding answers with optimal rhetoric representation. In Proceedings of recent advances in natural language processing (pp. 253–259), Varna, Bulgaria.
   Google Scholar
• Galitsky, B., & Kovalerchuk, B. (2014). Improving web search relevance with learning structure of domain concepts. Clusters, Orders, and Trees: Methods and Applications, 341–376.
   Google Scholar
• Galitsky, B., Ilvovsky, D., & Kuznetsov, S. O. (2015, September 7–9). Text classification into abstract classes based on discourse structure. In Proceedings of recent advances in natural language processing (pp. 200–207). Hissar, Bulgaria.
   Google Scholar
• Galitsky, B., Ilvovsky, D., Kuznetsov S. O., & Strok F. (2013). Matching sets of parse trees for answering multi-sentence questions. In Proceedings of Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (pp. 285–293). Hissar, Bulgaria.
   Google Scholar
• Galitsky, B., Ilvovsky, D., Pisarevskaya, D. (2018). Argumentation in text: Discourse structure matters. CICLing 2018. Hanoi, Vietnam.
   Google Scholar
• Ganter, B., & Wille, R. (1999). Formal concept analysis. London: Springer-Verlag.10.1007/978-3-642-59830-2
   Google Scholar
• Ghosh, D., Muresan, S., Wacholder, N., Aakhus, M., & Mitsui, M. (2014, June 26). Analyzing Argumentative Discourse Units in Online Interactions. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining (pp. 39–48). Baltimore, MD: Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, Mark, Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reutemann, P., & Witten, I. H. (2009). The weka data mining software: An update. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 11(1), 10–18.10.1145/1656274
   Google Scholar
• Houngbo, H., & Mercer, R. (2014, June 26). An automated method to build a corpus of rhetorically-classified sentences in biomedical texts. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining (pp. 19–23). Baltimore, MD: Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Iruskieta, M., da Cunha, I., Taboada, M. 2014. A qualitative comparison method for rhetorical structures: Identifying different discourse structures in multilingual corpora. Lang Resources & Evaluation 49(2), 263–309.
   Google Scholar
• Jansen, P., Surdeanu, M., & Clark, P. (2014). Discourse complements lexical semantics for nonfactoid answer reranking. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Baltimore MD.
   Google Scholar
• Joachims, T., Finley, T., & Yu, C.-N. (2009). Cutting-plane training of structural SVMs. Machine Learning, 77(1), 27–59.10.1007/s10994-009-5108-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joty, S., & Moschitti, A. (2014). Discriminative reranking of discourse parses using tree kernels. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Doha, Qatar.
   Google Scholar
• Joty, S. R. Carenini, G. Ng, R. T., & Mehdad, Y.. (2013). Combining intra-and multi-sentential rhetorical parsing for document-level discourse analysis. In ACL (Vol. 1, pp. 486–496). Sophia Bulgaria.
   Google Scholar
• Joty, S., Carenini, G., & Ng, R. T. (2015). CODRA: A novel discriminative framework for rhetorical analysis. Computational Linguistics, 41(3), 385–435.10.1162/COLI_a_00226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kipper, K., Korhonen, A., Ryant, N., & Palmer, M. (2008). A large-scale classification of English verbs. Language Resources and Evaluation Journal, 42, 21–40.10.1007/s10579-007-9048-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirschner, C.0 , Eckle-Kohler, J., & Gurevych, I. (2015). Linking the thoughts: Analysis of argumentation structures in scientific publications. NAACL HLT 2015 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining, Denver, Colorado, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Kovalerchuk, B. (2018). Visual knowledge discovery and machine learning. London: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-73040-0
   Google Scholar
• Kovalerchuk, B., & Kovalerchuk, M. (2017). Toward virtual data scientist with visual means. International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), Anchorage, Alaska.
   Google Scholar
• Kwon, N., Zhou, L., Hovy, E., & Shulman, S. W. (2007). Identifying and classifying subjective claims. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Bridging Disciplines & Domains (pp. 76–81). Philadelphia, PA.
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence, J., & Reed, C. A. (2015). Combining argument mining techniques’ in working notes of the 2nd argumentation mining workshop. Denver, CO: Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).
   Google Scholar
• Lazaridou, A., Titov, I., & Sporleder, C. (2013, August 4–9). A bayesian model for joint unsupervised induction of sentiment, aspect and discourse representations. Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 1630–1639). Sofia, Bulgaria.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, D. (2001). Genres, registers, text types, domains and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning & Technology, 5(3), 37–72.
   Google Scholar
• Lin Z., Kan M., & Ng H. (2009, August).Recognizing Implicit Discourse Relations in the Penn Discourse Tree- bank. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2009), Singapore.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, Ziheng, Ng, Hwee Tou, & Kan, Min-Yen (2014). A PDTB-styled end-to-end discourse parser. Natural Language Engineering, 20(2), 151–184.10.1017/S1351324912000307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lippi, M., & Torroni, Paolo (2016). Argumentation mining. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 16(2), 1–25.10.1145/2909066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann, W., & Thompson, S. (1998). Rhetorical structure theory: Towards a functional theory of text organization. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 8(3), 243–281.
   Google Scholar
• Mann, W., Matthiessen, C., Thompson, S. (1992). Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. In W. C. Mann & S. A. Thompson (Eds.)., Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text (pp. 39–78). Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Micheli, R. (2011). Arguing without trying to persuade? Elements for a non-persuasive definition of argumentation. Argumentation, 26(1), 115–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikolov, T. I. Sutskever, K., & Chen. D. (2011). Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In G. S. Corrado, J. Dean (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 3111–3119). Granada, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G. S., & Dean, J. (2015). Computing numeric representations of words in a high-dimensional space. US Patent 9,037,464, Google.
   Google Scholar
• Mitocariu, E., Alexandru,D., Cristea, D. (2013, March 24–30). Comparing discourse tree structures. Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing: Proceedings of 14th International Conference, CICLing Part I, Samos, Greece.
   Google Scholar
• Mochales-Palau, R., & Marie-Francine Moens, M.-F. (2011). Argumentation mining. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 19(1), 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Mochales-Palau, R., & Moens, M.-F. (2009). Argumentation Mining: The Detection, Classification and Structuring of Arguments in Text. ICAIL (pp. 98–107). Barcelona, Spain,10.1007/s10506-010-9104-x
   Google Scholar
• Moens, M.-F., Boiy, E., Palau, R. M., & Reed, C. (2007). Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL ’07 (pp. 225–230), Stanford, CA.10.1145/1276318
   Google Scholar
• Oraby, S., Reed, L., Compton, R., Riloff, E., Walker, M., & Whittaker, S. (2015). And that’s a fact: Distinguishing factual and emotional argumentation in online dialogue. NAACL HLT 2015 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining. Denver, Colorado.
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, M. (2009, September). Semlink: Linking PropBank, VerbNet and FrameNet. Proceedings of the Generative Lexicon Conference. Pisa, Italy: GenLex-09.
   Google Scholar
• Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2004). A sentimental education: Sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL '04). Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Peldszus, A., & Stede, M. (2013). From Argument Diagrams to Argumentation Mining in Texts: A Survey. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence, 7(1), 1–31.
   Google Scholar
• Pendyala, V. S., & Figueira, S. (2015, October 8–11). Towards a truthful world wide web from a humanitarian perspective. Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Persing, I., & Ng, V. (2015). Modeling argument strength in student essays. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL ’15 (pp. 543–552). Beijing, China.
   Google Scholar
• Pisarevskaya, D., Litvinova, T., Litvinova, O. (2017). Deception detection for the russian language: Lexical and syntactic parameters. Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Natural Language Processing and Information Retrieval/RANLP. Varna, Bulgaria.
   Google Scholar
• Prasad, R. , Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Robaldo, L., Joshi, A., & Webber, B. (2008). The penn discourse TreeBank 2.0. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08) (pp. 28–30).
   Google Scholar
• Sardianos, C., Katakis, I. M., Petasis, G., & Karkaletsis, V. (2015) Argument extraction from news. In Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on argumentation mining (pp. 56–66), Denver, CO.
   Google Scholar
• Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language (pp. 19–33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Socher, R., Perelygin, A., Wu, J., Chuang, J., Manning, C., Ng, A., & Potts, C. (2013). Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment Treebank. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Seattle, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Somasundaran, A., & Wiebe, J. (2010). Recognizing stances in ideological on-line debates. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Computational Approaches to Analysis and Generation of Emotion in Text (CAAGET '10) (pp. 116–124). Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Stab, C., & Gurevych, I. (2014). Identifying argumentative discourse structures in persuasive essays. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP ’14 (pp. 46–56). Doha, Qatar.
   Google Scholar
• Stab, C., & Gurevych, I. (2016). Recognizing the absence of opposing arguments in persuasive essays. Berlin, Germany: ACL.
   Google Scholar
• Stab, C., & Gurevych, I. (2017, April). Recognizing insufficiently supported arguments in argumentative essays. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL 2017) (pp. 980–990). Valencia Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Surdeanu, M., Hicks, T., & Valenzuela-Escarcega, M. A. (2015). Two practical rhetorical structure theory parsers. Proceedings of the conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics - human language technologies: Software demonstrations (NAACL HLT). Denver Colorado USA.
   Google Scholar
• Theranos. (2016). Retrieved October 3, 2016, from https://theranos.com/news/posts/wall-street-journal-letter-to-the-editor
   Google Scholar
• van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• WagSoft. (2017). Retrieved January 1, 2018, from http://www.wagsoft.com/RSTTool/RSTDefs.htm
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802034
   Google Scholar
• Wang, W., Su, J., & Tan, C. L. (2010). Kernel based discourse relation recognition with temporal ordering information. ACL (pp. 710–719). Uppsala, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Webber, Bonnie, Egg, Mark, & Kordoni, Valia (2012). Discourse structure and language technology. Natural Language Engineering, 18, 437–490.10.1017/S1351324911000337
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar