Keshav Singh

Farjana Sultana Mim, Naoya Inoue, Shoichi Naito et al.

In argumentative discourse, persuasion is often achieved by refuting or attacking others arguments. Attacking is not always straightforward and often comprise complex rhetorical moves such that arguers might agree with a logic of an argument while attacking another logic. Moreover, arguer might neither deny nor agree with any logics of an argument, instead ignore them and attack the main stance of the argument by providing new logics and presupposing that the new logics have more value or importance than the logics present in the attacked argument. However, no existing studies in the computational argumentation capture such complex rhetorical moves in attacks or the presuppositions or value judgements in them. In order to address this gap, we introduce LPAttack, a novel annotation scheme that captures the common modes and complex rhetorical moves in attacks along with the implicit presuppositions and value judgements in them. Our annotation study shows moderate inter-annotator agreement, indicating that human annotation for the proposed scheme is feasible. We publicly release our annotated corpus and the annotation guidelines.

Shoichi Naito, Shintaro Sawada, Chihiro Nakagawa et al.

Providing feedback on the argumentation of the learner is essential for developing critical thinking skills, however, it requires a lot of time and effort. To mitigate the overload on teachers, we aim to automate a process of providing feedback, especially giving diagnostic comments which point out the weaknesses inherent in the argumentation. It is recommended to give specific diagnostic comments so that learners can recognize the diagnosis without misinterpretation. However, it is not obvious how the task of providing specific diagnostic comments should be formulated. We present a formulation of the task as template selection and slot filling to make an automatic evaluation easier and the behavior of the model more tractable. The key to the formulation is the possibility of creating a template set that is sufficient for practical use. In this paper, we define three criteria that a template set should satisfy: expressiveness, informativeness, and uniqueness, and verify the feasibility of creating a template set that satisfies these criteria as a first trial. We will show that it is feasible through an annotation study that converts diagnostic comments given in a text to a template format. The corpus used in the annotation study is publicly available.

Keshav Singh, Naoya Inoue, Farjana Sultana Mim et al.

Most of the existing work that focus on the identification of implicit knowledge in arguments generally represent implicit knowledge in the form of commonsense or factual knowledge. However, such knowledge is not sufficient to understand the implicit reasoning link between individual argumentative components (i.e., claim and premise). In this work, we focus on identifying the implicit knowledge in the form of argumentation knowledge which can help in understanding the reasoning link in arguments. Being inspired by the Argument from Consequences scheme, we propose a semi-structured template to represent such argumentation knowledge that explicates the implicit reasoning in arguments via causality. We create a novel two-phase annotation process with simplified guidelines and show how to collect and filter high-quality implicit reasonings via crowdsourcing. We find substantial inter-annotator agreement for quality evaluation between experts, but find evidence that casts a few questions on the feasibility of collecting high-quality semi-structured implicit reasoning through our crowdsourcing process. We release our materials(i.e., crowdsourcing guidelines and collected implicit reasonings) to facilitate further research towards the structured representation of argumentation knowledge.

Keshav Singh, Paul Reisert, Naoya Inoue et al.

Explicating implicit reasoning (i.e. warrants) in arguments is a long-standing challenge for natural language understanding systems. While recent approaches have focused on explicating warrants via crowdsourcing or expert annotations, the quality of warrants has been questionable due to the extreme complexity and subjectivity of the task. In this paper, we tackle the complex task of warrant explication and devise various methodologies for collecting warrants. We conduct an extensive study with trained experts to evaluate the resulting warrants of each methodology and find that our methodologies allow for high-quality warrants to be collected. We construct a preliminary dataset of 6,000 warrants annotated over 600 arguments for 3 debatable topics. To facilitate research in related downstream tasks, we release our guidelines and preliminary dataset.

Pride Kavumba, Naoya Inoue, Benjamin Heinzerling et al.

Pretrained language models, such as BERT and RoBERTa, have shown large improvements in the commonsense reasoning benchmark COPA. However, recent work found that many improvements in benchmarks of natural language understanding are not due to models learning the task, but due to their increasing ability to exploit superficial cues, such as tokens that occur more often in the correct answer than the wrong one. Are BERT's and RoBERTa's good performance on COPA also caused by this? We find superficial cues in COPA, as well as evidence that BERT exploits these cues. To remedy this problem, we introduce Balanced COPA, an extension of COPA that does not suffer from easy-to-exploit single token cues. We analyze BERT's and RoBERTa's performance on original and Balanced COPA, finding that BERT relies on superficial cues when they are present, but still achieves comparable performance once they are made ineffective, suggesting that BERT learns the task to a certain degree when forced to. In contrast, RoBERTa does not appear to rely on superficial cues.