Argument & Computation - Volume 9, issue 2

Authors: Grasso, Floriana | Green, Nancy L.

Article Type: Introduction

DOI: 10.3233/AAC-180034

Citation: Argument & Computation, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 73-75, 2018

Authors: Schneider, Jodi | Jackson, Sally

Article Type: Research Article

Abstract: A background assumption of this paper is that the repertoire of inference schemes available to humanity is not fixed, but subject to change as new schemes are invented or refined and as old ones are obsolesced or abandoned. This is particularly visible in areas like health and environmental sciences, where enormous societal investment has been made in finding ways to reach more dependable conclusions. Computational modeling of argumentation, at least for the discourse in expert fields, will require the possibility of modeling change in a stock of schemes that may be applied to generate conclusions from data. We examine Randomized …Clinical Trial, an inference scheme established within medical science in the mid-20th Century, and show that its successful defense by means of practical reasoning allowed for its black-boxing as an inference scheme that generates (and warrants belief in) conclusions about the effects of medical treatments. Modeling the use of a scheme is well-understood; here we focus on modeling how the scheme comes to be established so that it is available for use. Show more

Keywords: Warrant, practical reasoning scheme, warranting devices, inference rules, Argument Interchange Format, Forms Ontology, Randomized Clinical Trials, expert reasoning

DOI: 10.3233/AAC-180036

Citation: Argument & Computation, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 77-89, 2018

Authors: Gordon, Thomas F. | Friedrich, Horst | Walton, Douglas

Article Type: Research Article

Abstract: We present a high-level declarative programming language for representing argumentation schemes, where schemes represented in this language can be easily validated by domain experts, including developers of argumentation schemes in informal logic and philosophy, and serve as executable specifications for automatically constructing arguments, when applied to a set of assumptions. Since argumentation schemes are defeasible inference rules, both premises and conclusions of schemes can be second-order schema variables, i.e. without a fixed predicate symbol. Thus, while particular schemes can be and have been implemented in computer programs, in general argumentation schemes cannot be represented as executable specifications using logic …programming languages based on first-order logic, such as Prolog. Moreover, even if the conclusion (head) of Prolog rules could be second-order variables, a depth-first, backward-chaining search strategy, as typically used in logic programming, would usually cause such programs to not terminate, since every goal would match the head of such a scheme, including all goals created by instantiating the body of the same scheme. The language for representing argumentation schemes presented here, for the purpose of automatically constructing arguments, uses Constraint Handling Rules (CHR), a declarative, Turing complete, forwards-chaining, rule-based programming language introduced by Thom Frühwirth in 1991. CHR is attractive for representing and implementing argumentation for several reasons, including: 1) Inference rules, rewrite rules, sequents, proof rules, and logical axioms can be directly written in CHR. 2) The execution of CHR rules can be interrupted and restarted at any time, with intermediate results approximating the final solution, and 3) Constraints can be input incrementally as they become known, during rule execution, without requiring recomputation. These three properties of CHR appear attractive for representing and implementing argumentation schemes. Since argumentation schemes are (defeasible) inference rules, the ability of CHR to represent inference rules directly would appear to be quite useful. The ability to stop the computation and produce approximate results is compatible with one objective of argumentation, to provide a principled method for supporting approximate reasoning with limited resources. Because argumentation typically takes place in dialogs, with evidence and arguments brought forward and asserted by the participants incrementally, during the course of the dialog, CHR’s ability to handle new information, incrementally introduced during the computation, may be useful. This new rule language for representing argumentation schemes is validated by using it to represent twenty representative argumentation schemes. Show more

Keywords: Argumentation schemes, argument generation, rule-based systems, Constraint Handling Rules, logic programming, data protection

DOI: 10.3233/AAC-180039

Citation: Argument & Computation, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 91-119, 2018

Authors: Green, Nancy L.

Article Type: Research Article

Abstract: The dominant approach to argument mining has been to treat it as a machine learning problem based upon superficial text features, and to treat the relationships between arguments as either support or attack. However, accurately summarizing argumentation in scientific research articles requires a deeper understanding of the text and a richer model of relationships between arguments. First, this paper presents an argumentation scheme-based approach to mining a class of biomedical research articles. Argumentation schemes implemented as logic programs are formulated in terms of semantic predicates that could be obtained from a text by use of biomedical/biological natural language processing tools. …The logic programs can be used to extract the underlying scheme name, premises, and implicit or explicit conclusion of an argument. Then this paper explores how arguments in a research article occur within a narrative of scientific discovery, how they are related to each other, and some implications. Show more

Keywords: Argument mining, argumentation mining, argumentation schemes, scientific discourse, scientific discovery, discovery dialogue

DOI: 10.3233/AAC-180038

Citation: Argument & Computation, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 121-135, 2018

Authors: Saint-Dizier, Patrick

Article Type: Research Article

Abstract: Given an issue and related propositions for or against it, a major challenge to make these propositions accessible to readers is to produce a synthesis that is readable, synthetic enough, and relevant for various types of needs and points of view. Based on the Generative Lexicon (GL) Qualia Structure, which is a kind of lexical and knowledge repository, that we have enhanced in different manners and associated with inferences and language patterns, we show, via a number of preliminary experiments, how to construct a synthesis that outlines the typical elements found in propositions for or against a controversial issue. We …propose a two-level approach: a synthesis of the propositions that have been mined, and navigation facilities that allow users to access arguments, structured in clusters, in order to get more details. This approach contributes to characterize why and how propositions support or attack an issue or some facets of that issue. Show more

Keywords: Argument mining, natural language processing, knowledge representation, Generative Lexicon Qualia Structure

DOI: 10.3233/AAC-180035

Citation: Argument & Computation, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 137-154, 2018

Authors: Harris, Randy Allen | Di Marco, Chrysanne | Ruan, Sebastian | O’Reilly, Cliff

Article Type: Research Article

Abstract: There is a driving need computationally to interrogate large bodies of text for a range of non-denotative meaning (e.g., to plot chains of reasoning, detect sentiment, diagnose genre, and so forth). But such meaning has always proven computationally allusive. It is often implicit, ‘hidden’ meaning, evoked by linguistic cues, stylistic arrangement, or conceptual structure – features that have hitherto been difficult for Natural Language Processing systems to recognize and use. Non-denotative textual effects are the historical concern of rhetorical studies, and we have turned to rhetoric in order to find new ways to advance NLP, especially for sophisticated tasks like …Argument Mining. This paper highlights certain rhetorical devices that encode levels of meaning that have been overlooked in Computational Linguistics generally and Argument Mining particularly, and yet lend themselves to automated detection. These devices are the linguistic configurations known as Rhetorical Figures . We argue for the importance of these devices for Argument Mining, especially in collocations, and we present an XML annotation scheme for Rhetorical Figures to make figuration more tractable for computational approaches, particularly with an eye on the improvements they offer Argument Mining. We also discuss the intellectual and technical challenges involved in figure annotation and the implications for Machine Learning. Show more

Keywords: Rhetoric, rhetorical figures, annotation, argument mining, XML

DOI: 10.3233/AAC-180037

Citation: Argument & Computation, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 155-175, 2018