A natural language bipolar argumentation approach to support users in online debate interactions†

Argument and Computation

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 209-230

  Cabrio, Elena ^a   Villata, Serena ^a  

^a INRIA   (France)

Author keywords

argumentation theory; natural language processing; online debates

Indexed keywords

ARGUMENTATION THEORY; BIPOLAR ARGUMENTATION; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; GENERIC FRAMEWORKS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; ONLINE DEBATES; SEMANTIC INFERENCE; TEXTUAL ENTAILMENT;

NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

SEMANTICS;

EID: 84890049460     PISSN: 19462166     EISSN: 19462174     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19462166.2013.862303     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Amgoud, L., & Besnard, P. (2009, September). Bridging the gap between abstract argumentation systems and logic. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM), LNCS 5785 (pp. 12-27).Washington, DC: Springer Verlag.
2. Amgoud, L., & Prade, H. (2013). Can AI models capture natural language argumentation? International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence, 6, 19-32.
3. Androutsopoulos, I., & Malakasiotis, P. (2010). A survey of paraphrasing and textual entailment methods. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 38, 135-187.
4. Apotheloz, D. (1993). The function of negation in argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(1), 23-38.
5. Barzilay, R., & McKeown, K. (2005). Sentence fusion for multidocument news summarization. Computational Linguistics, 31(3), 297-327.
6. Blackburn, P., Bos, J., Kohlhase, M., & de Nivelle., H. (2001). Inference and computational semantics. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Computing Meaning, 77(2), 11-28.
7. Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L.W.N., & Villata, S. (2010, September). Support in abstract argumentation. In Proceedings of Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications 216 (pp. 111-122). Desenzano del Garda, Italy: IOS Press.
8. Bos, J., & Markert, K. (2006, October). When logical inference helps determining textual entailment (and when it doesn't). In Proceedings of the 2nd PASCAL workshop on recognizing textual entailment. Venice.
9. Cabrio, E., &Villata, S. (2012, August). Natural language arguments:A combined approach. In Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications 242 (pp. 205-210). Montpellier: IOS Press.
10. Cabrio, E., Villata, S., & Gandon, F. (2013, May). A support framework for argumentative discussions management in the web. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on the semantic web: Semantics and big data (ESWC), LNCS 7882 (pp. 412-426). Montpellier: Springer Verlag.
11. Carenini, G., & Moore, J.D. (2006). Generating and evaluating evaluative arguments. Artificial Intelligence, 170, 925-952.
12. Carletta, J. (1996). Assessing agreement on classification tasks: The kappa statistic. Computational Linguistics, 22, 249-254.
13. Cayrol, C., & Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C. (2005, July). On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU), LNCS 3571 (pp. 378-389). Barcelona: Springer Verlag.
14. Cayrol, C., & Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C. (2010). Coalitions of arguments: A tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 25, 83-109.
15. Cayrol, C., & Lagasquie-Schiex, M. (2011, October). Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: Towards a better understanding. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM), LNCS 6929 (pp. 137-148). Dayton, OH: Springer Verlag.
16. Chesñevar, C.I., & Maguitman, A. (2004, August). An argumentative approach to assessing natural language usage based on the web corpus. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI) (pp. 581-585). Valencia: IOS Press.
17. Chierchia, G., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2000). Meaning and grammar: An introduction to semantics (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Dagan, I., Dolan, B., Magnini, B., & Roth, D. (2009). Recognizing textual entailment: Rational, evaluation and approaches. Natural Language Engineering Journal, 15, i-xvii.
19. Dung, P. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321-358.
20. Gilbert, M. (2001, May). Getting good value. Facts, values, and goals in computational linguistics. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science (ICCS), LNCS 2073 (pp. 989-998). San Francisco, CA: Springer Verlag.
21. Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., & Walton, D. (2007). The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 875-896.
22. Heras, S., Atkinson, K., Botti,V.J., Grasso, F., Julián,V., & McBurney, P. (2010, September). How argumentation can enhance dialogues in social networks. In Proceedings of computational models of argument (COMMA), frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications 216 (pp. 267-274). Desenzano del Garda, Italy: IOS Press.
23. Kouylekov, M., & Negri, M. (2010, July). An open-source package for recognizing textual entailment. In Proceedings of the association for computational linguistics, system demonstrations (ACL) (pp. 42-47). Uppsala: The Association for Computer Linguistics.
24. Landauer, T.K., Laham, D., Rehder, B.,&Schreiner, M.E. (1997, December). Howwell can passage meaning be derived without using word order? A comparison of Latent Semantic Analysis and humans. In Proceedings of CSS (pp. 412-417). San Diego, CA.
25. Leite, J., & Martins, J. (2011, July). Social abstract argumentation. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) (pp. 2287-2292). Barcelona: IJCAI/AAAI.
26. Marneffe, M.D., Rafferty, A., & Manning, C. (2008, June). Finding contradictions in text. Proceedings of the 46th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Columbus, OH.
27. Moens, M., Boiy, E., Palau, R.M., & Reed, C. (2007, June). Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts. Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL) (pp. 225-230). Stanford, California, USA.
28. Monz, C., & de Rijke, M. (2001, June). Light-weight entailment checking for computational semantics. In Proceedings Inference in Computational Semantics (ICoS-3) (pp. 59-72). Siena.
29. Nouioua, F., & Risch, V. (2010, October). Bipolar argumentation frameworks with specialized supports. In Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI) (pp. 215-218). Arras, France: IEEE Computer Society.
30. Nouioua, F., & Risch, V. (2011, October). Argumentation frameworks with necessities. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM), LNCS 6929 (pp. 163-176). Dayton, OH: Springer Verlag.
31. Oren, N., & Norman, T.J. (2008, May). Semantics for evidence-based argumentation. In Proceedings of the international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA), frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications 172 (pp. 276-284). Toulouse: IOS Press.
32. Oren, N., Reed, C., & Luck, M. (2010, September). Moving between argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of the international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA), frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications 216 (pp. 379-390). Desenzano del Garda, Italy: IOS Press.
33. Pinkal, M. (1995). Logic and lexicon: The semantics of the indefinite. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 56. Springer Verlag.
34. Prakken, H. (2010). An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument & Computation, 1, 93-124.
35. Rahwan, I., Banihashemi, B., Reed, C., Walton, D., & Abdallah, S. (2011). Representing and classifying arguments on the semantic web. Knowledge Engineering Review, 26, 487-511.
36. Rahwan, I., Madakkatel, M.I., Bonnefon, J.F., Awan, R.N., & Abdallah, S. (2010). Behavioral experiments for assessing the abstract argumentation semantics of reinstatement. Cognitive Science, 34, 1483-1502.
37. Rahwan, I., & Simari, G. (Eds.). (2009). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer.
38. Reed, C., & Grasso, F. (2007). Recent advances in computational models of natural argument. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22, 1-15.
39. Reed, C., & Rowe, G. (2004). Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 13, 961-980.
40. Romano, L., Kouylekov, M.O., Szpektor, I., Dagan, I., & Lavelli, A. (2006, April). Investigating a generic paraphrase-based approach for relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 11st conference of the European chapter of the association for computational linguistics (EACL) (pp. 409-416). Avignon: The Association for Computer Linguistics.
41. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
42. Verheij, B. (1998, December). Argumed-a template-based argument mediation system for lawyers and legal knowledge based systems. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX) (pp. 113-130). Amsterdam.
43. Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press.
44. Wyner, A., & van Engers, T. (2010, September). A framework for enriched, controlled on-line discussion forums for e-government policy-making. Proceedings of the annual international e-government conference (eGov), Bilbao, Spain.