Результаты исследований: Публикации в книгах, отчётах, сборниках, трудах конференций › статья в сборнике материалов конференции › научная › Рецензирование
Evaluating the Influence of Argumentation Markers on the Identification of Reasoning Models. / Pimenov, Ivan S.; Salomatina, Natalia V.
Communications in Computer and Information Science. Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH, 2024. стр. 282-297 21 (Communications in Computer and Information Science; Том 2086 CCIS).Результаты исследований: Публикации в книгах, отчётах, сборниках, трудах конференций › статья в сборнике материалов конференции › научная › Рецензирование
}
TY - GEN
T1 - Evaluating the Influence of Argumentation Markers on the Identification of Reasoning Models
AU - Pimenov, Ivan S.
AU - Salomatina, Natalia V.
N1 - Conference code: 25
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - The article focuses on evaluating the influence of argumentation markers on the identification of specific reasoning models with machine learning methods. The evaluation process consists of a sequence of classification experiments with different feature sets. The experiments cover the identification of arguments with three specific reasoning models: “Expert Opinion”, “Example”, and “Practical Reasoning”. These models are characterized by 1) an active use in scientific articles (as evidenced by their high frequency in the employed corpus) and 2) reliance of their textual expression on typical words and phrases (markers). Each model corresponds to a separate subset of the overall dataset: 680 arguments for classifying the “Example” model, 386 for “Practical Reasoning”, 172 for “Expert Opinion” (in each case, a half of the arguments employs the corresponding model, while the other half relies on any other model except for these three). The overall dataset contains 1975 arguments from 45 scientific articles in Russian language (on linguistics and computational technologies). The argumentation in these articles is annotated with the ArgNetBank Studio platform. Classification experiments employ machine learning methods of different types: multinomial naive Bayes, support vector machine, and multilayer perceptron. The feature sets differ by the inclusion or exclusion of discourse markers and persuasion modes indicators (expressions characterizing three argumentation aspects: logos, pathos, and ethos). The experiments show that the best improvement of identification scores (on average across all schemes and classifiers) corresponds to the representation of arguments with discourse markers (plus 10% for precision and 7% for F-measure over the lemmas baseline).
AB - The article focuses on evaluating the influence of argumentation markers on the identification of specific reasoning models with machine learning methods. The evaluation process consists of a sequence of classification experiments with different feature sets. The experiments cover the identification of arguments with three specific reasoning models: “Expert Opinion”, “Example”, and “Practical Reasoning”. These models are characterized by 1) an active use in scientific articles (as evidenced by their high frequency in the employed corpus) and 2) reliance of their textual expression on typical words and phrases (markers). Each model corresponds to a separate subset of the overall dataset: 680 arguments for classifying the “Example” model, 386 for “Practical Reasoning”, 172 for “Expert Opinion” (in each case, a half of the arguments employs the corresponding model, while the other half relies on any other model except for these three). The overall dataset contains 1975 arguments from 45 scientific articles in Russian language (on linguistics and computational technologies). The argumentation in these articles is annotated with the ArgNetBank Studio platform. Classification experiments employ machine learning methods of different types: multinomial naive Bayes, support vector machine, and multilayer perceptron. The feature sets differ by the inclusion or exclusion of discourse markers and persuasion modes indicators (expressions characterizing three argumentation aspects: logos, pathos, and ethos). The experiments show that the best improvement of identification scores (on average across all schemes and classifiers) corresponds to the representation of arguments with discourse markers (plus 10% for precision and 7% for F-measure over the lemmas baseline).
KW - Argument mining
KW - argumentation markers
KW - discourse markers
KW - machine learning
KW - reasoning models
KW - scientific articles
UR - https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85206375131&origin=inward&txGid=7b324c01012f228efb30d7255a67c4f9
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/1128efa5-7df1-3772-9f28-8af1c8699a19/
U2 - 10.1007/978-3-031-67826-4_21
DO - 10.1007/978-3-031-67826-4_21
M3 - Conference contribution
SN - 978-3-031-67825-7
T3 - Communications in Computer and Information Science
SP - 282
EP - 297
BT - Communications in Computer and Information Science
PB - Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH
T2 - 25th International Conference on Data Analytics and Management in Data Intensive Domains
Y2 - 24 October 2023 through 27 October 2023
ER -
ID: 61528742