European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty

ECSQARU 2015: Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty pp 60-71 | Cite as

Representing and Reasoning About Arguments Mined from Texts and Dialogues

  • Leila AmgoudEmail author
  • Philippe Besnard
  • Anthony Hunter
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9161)


This paper presents a target language for representing arguments mined from natural language. The key features are the connection between possible reasons and possible claims and recursive embedding of such connections. Given a base of these arguments and counterarguments mined from texts or dialogues, we want be able combine them, deconstruct them, and to analyse them (for instance to check whether the set is inconsistent). To address these needs, we propose a formal language for representing reasons and claims, and a framework for inferencing with the arguments and counterarguments in this formal language.


Natural Language Logical Consequence Inference Rule Target Language Sentiment Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Cabrio, E., Villata, S.: Generating abstract arguments: a natural language approach. In: Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA’12), pp. 454–461. IOS Press (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Florou, E., Konstantopoulos, S., Koukourikos, A., Karampiperis, P.: 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. ACL (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Peldszus, A., Stede, M.: From argument diagrams to argumentation mining in texts: a survey. Int. J. Cogn. Inf. Nat. Intell. 7(1), 1–31 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Green, N., Ashley, K., Litman, D., Reed, C., Walker, V. (eds.).: Proceedings of the First ACL Workshop on Argumentation Mining (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aharoni, E., Polnarov, A., Lavee, T., Hershcovich, D., Levy, R., Rinott, R., Gutfreund, D., Slonim, N.: A benchmark dataset for automatic detection of claims and evidence in the context of controversial topics. In: Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Argumentation Mining (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levy, R., Bilu, Y., Hershcovich, D., Aharoni, E., Slonim, N.: Context dependent claim detection. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Computational Linguistics (COLING) (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and \(n\)-person games. Artific. Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bondarenko, A., Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 93, 63–101 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    García, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory Pract. Logic Program. 4(1–2), 95–138 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument Comput. 5(1), 1–31 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Black, E., Hunter, A.: A relevance-theoretic framework for constructing and deconstructing enthymemes. J. Logic Comput. 22(1), 55–78 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Apothéloz, D.: The function of negation in argumentation. J. Pragmatics 19, 23–38 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang, L., Cardie, C.: Improving agreement and disagreement identification in online discussions with a socially-tuned sentiment lexicon. In: Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kraus, S., Lehmann, S., Magidor, D.: Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artif. Intell. 44, 167–207 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tarski, A.: Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1956). Traslated by (Woodger., J. H)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leila Amgoud
    • 1
    Email author
  • Philippe Besnard
    • 1
  • Anthony Hunter
    • 2
  1. 1.CNRS, IRITUniversité de ToulouseToulouseFrance
  2. 2.University College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations