Towards Automatic Argument Extraction and Visualization in a Deliberative Model of Online Consultations for Local Governments

  • Robert BembenikEmail author
  • Piotr Andruszkiewicz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9809)


Automatic extraction and visualization of arguments used in a long online discussion, especially if the discussion involves a large number of participants and spreads over several days, can be helpful to the people involved. The main benefit is that they do not have to read all entries to get to know the main topics being discussed and can refer to existing arguments instead of introducing them anew. Such discussions take place, i.e., on a deliberative platform being developed under the ‘In Dialogue’ project. In this paper we propose a framework allowing for automatic extraction of arguments from deliberations and visualization. The framework assumes extraction of arguments and argument proposals, sentiment analysis to predict whether argument is negative or positive, classification to decide how the arguments are related and the use of ontology for visualization.


Automatic argumentation extraction Argumentation visualization Argument mining Natural language processing 


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Bex, F., Lawrence, J., Snaith, M., Reed, C.: Implementing the argument web. Commun. ACM 56(10), 66–73 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Budzynska, K., Janier, M., Kang, J., Reed, C., Saint-Dizier, P., Stede, M., Yaskorska, O.: Towards argument mining from dialogue. In: COMMA, pp. 185–196 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cabrio, E., Villata, S.: Combining textual entailment and argumentation theory for supporting online debates interactions. In: Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Short Papers, vol. 2, pp. 208–212. Association for Computational Linguistics (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carneades tools for argument (re)construction, evaluation, mapping and interchange.
  6. 6.
    Chesñevar, C., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., McGinnis, J., Vreeswijk, G., Willmott, S.: Towards an argument interchange format. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 21(04), 293–316 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cuong, N.V., Chandrasekaran, M.K., Kan, M.Y., Lee, W.S.: Scholarly document information extraction using extensible features for efficient higher order semi-CRFs. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM/IEEE-CE on Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, pp. 61–64. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feldman, R.: Techniques and applications for sentiment analysis. Commun. ACM 56(4), 82–89 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ghosh, D., Muresan, S., Wacholder, N., Aakhus, M., Mitsui, M.: Analyzing argumentative discourse units in online interactions. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining, pp. 39–48 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gordon, T.F., Walton, D.N.: The Carneades argumentation framework - using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.B.C. (eds.) Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA-06, pp. 195–207. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Green, N.: Towards creation of a corpus for argumentation mining the biomedical genetics research literature. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining, pp. 11–18 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gürkan, A., Iandoli, L., Klein, M., Zollo, G.: Mediating debate through on-line large-scale argumentation: evidence from the field. Inform. Sci. 180(19), 3686–3702 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lafferty, J., McCallum, A., Pereira, F.C.: Conditional random fields: probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu, B.: Sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Synth. Lect. Hum. Lang. Technol. 5(1), 1–167 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., McLaren, B.M.: Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state of the art. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collaborative Learn. 5(1), 43–102 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schneider, D.C., Voigt, C., Betz, G.: Argunet - a software tool for collaborative argumentation analysis and research. In: 7th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA VII) (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Socher, R., Huang, E.H., Pennin, J., Manning, C. D., Ng, A.Y.:Dynamic pooling and unfolding recursive autoencoders for paraphrase detection. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 801–809 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Socher, R., Perelygin, A., Wu, J.Y., Chuang, J., Manning, C.D., Ng, A.Y., Potts, C.: Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), vol. 1631, p. 1642 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suthers, D.D.: Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In: Andriessen, J., Baker, M., Suthers, D. (eds.) Arguing to Learn, pp. 27–46. Springer, Netherlands (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sutton, C., McCallum, A.: Piecewise training for undirected models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1207.1409 (2012)
  22. 22.
    Trevisan, B., Jakobs, E.M., Dickmeis, E., Niehr, T.: Indicators of argument-conclusion relationships. An approach for argumentation mining in german discourses. In: ACL 2014, 176, 104 (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Gelder, T.: Enhancing deliberation through computer supported argument visualization. Visualizing argumentation, pp. 97–115. Springer, London (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Villalba, M.P.G., Saint-Dizier, P.: Some facets of argument mining for opinion analysis. COMMA 245, 23–34 (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wyner, A., Schneider, J., Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.: Semi-automated argumentative analysis of online product reviews. COMMA 245, 43–50 (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang, W., Ahmed, A., Yang, J., Josifovski, V., Smola, A.J.: Annotating needles in the haystack without looking: product information extraction from emails. In: Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 2257–2266. ACM (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceWarsaw University of TechnologyWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations