Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
119 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
56 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Multi-Task Learning Improves Performance In Deep Argument Mining Models (2307.01401v1)

Published 3 Jul 2023 in cs.CL

Abstract: The successful analysis of argumentative techniques from user-generated text is central to many downstream tasks such as political and market analysis. Recent argument mining tools use state-of-the-art deep learning methods to extract and annotate argumentative techniques from various online text corpora, however each task is treated as separate and different bespoke models are fine-tuned for each dataset. We show that different argument mining tasks share common semantic and logical structure by implementing a multi-task approach to argument mining that achieves better performance than state-of-the-art methods for the same problems. Our model builds a shared representation of the input text that is common to all tasks and exploits similarities between tasks in order to further boost performance via parameter-sharing. Our results are important for argument mining as they show that different tasks share substantial similarities and suggest a holistic approach to the extraction of argumentative techniques from text.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (50)
  1. Topic Independent Identification of Agreement and Disagreement in Social Media Dialogue. In Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 41–50, Metz, France, August 2013. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  2. And that’s a fact: Distinguishing factual and emotional argumentation in online dialogue. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.05295, 2017.
  3. Harnessing rhetorical figures for argument mining. Argument & Computation, 8(3):289–310, 2017.
  4. Argumentation quality assessment: Theory vs. practice. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 250–255, 2017a.
  5. Computational argumentation quality assessment in natural language. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 176–187, 2017b.
  6. How Can You Say Such Things?!? Recognizing Disagreement in Informal Political Argument. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Language in Social Media, pages 2–11, Portland, OR, June 2011. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  7. Identifying Argumentative Discourse Structures in Persuasive Essays. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 46–56, Doha, 2014. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  8. Recognizing insufficiently supported arguments in argumentative essays. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 980–990, 2017.
  9. " nice try, kiddo": Investigating ad hominems in dialogue responses. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.12820, 2020.
  10. Logical fallacy detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.13758, 2022.
  11. Argumentation Mining in User-Generated Web Discourse. Computational Linguistics, 43(1):125–179, April 2017.
  12. Five Years of Argument Mining: A Data-Driven Analysis. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 5427–5433, Stockholm, July 2018. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization.
  13. I Couldn’t Agree More: The Role of Conversational Structure in Agreement and Disagreement Detection in Online Discussions. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 168–177, Prague, 2015. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  14. Argument Mining: Extracting Arguments from Online Dialogue. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 217–226, Prague, September 2015. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:10.18653/v1/W15-4631.
  15. Fine-grained analysis of propaganda in news article. In Proceedings of the 2019 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and the 9th international joint conference on natural language processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5636–5646, 2019.
  16. Truth of Varying Shades: Analyzing Language in Fake News and Political Fact-Checking. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2931–2937, Copenhagen, September 2017. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  17. Automatic Classification of Rhetorical Roles for Sentences: Comparing Rule-Based Scripts with Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Automated Semantic Analysis of Information in Legal Text, Montréal, June 2019.
  18. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9, 2019.
  19. Task-aware representation of sentences for generic text classification. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3202–3213, 2020.
  20. Ape: Argument pair extraction from peer review and rebuttal via multi-task learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7000–7011, 2020.
  21. Michael Crawshaw. Multi-task learning with deep neural networks: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.09796, 2020.
  22. Facial landmark detection by deep multi-task learning. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part VI 13, pages 94–108. Springer, 2014.
  23. Instance-aware semantic segmentation via multi-task network cascades. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3150–3158, 2016.
  24. A modulation module for multi-task learning with applications in image retrieval. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 401–416, 2018.
  25. End-to-end multi-task learning with attention. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1871–1880, 2019.
  26. A unified architecture for natural language processing: Deep neural networks with multitask learning. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning, pages 160–167, 2008.
  27. Natural language processing (almost) from scratch. Journal of machine learning research, 12(ARTICLE):2493–2537, 2011.
  28. Representation learning using multi-task deep neural networks for semantic classification and information retrieval. 2015.
  29. Recurrent neural network for text classification with multi-task learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.05101, 2016.
  30. Internet Argument Corpus 2.0: An SQL Schema for Dialogic Social Media and the Corpora to Go With It. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pages 4445–4452, Portorož, Slovenia, May 2016.
  31. A Corpus for Research on Deliberation and Debate. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pages 812–817, Istanbul, May 2012.
  32. And That’s A Fact: Distinguishing Factual and Emotional Argumentation in Online Dialogue. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining, Denver, May 2015.
  33. Argumentation in Text: Discourse Structure Matters. In 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, Hanoi, March 2018.
  34. Issue Framing in Online Discussion Fora. In 2019 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, number arXiv:1904.03969, Minneapolis, MN, June 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  35. Measuring the Similarity of Sentential Arguments in Dialog. In Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2016 Conference, pages 276–287, Los Angeles, September 2016. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  36. Argument Strength is in the Eye of the Beholder: Audience Effects in Persuasion. August 2017.
  37. Creating and Characterizing a Diverse Corpus of Sarcasm in Dialogue. In Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2016 Conference, number arXiv:1709.05404, Los Angeles, September 2016. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  38. Lu Wang and Claire Cardie. Improving Agreement and Disagreement Identification in Online Discussions with A Socially-Tuned Sentiment Lexicon. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis, pages 97–106, Baltimore, June 2014. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  39. Really? Well. Apparently Bootstrapping Improves the Performance of Sarcasm and Nastiness Classifiers for Online Dialogue. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Language in Social Media, pages 3–40, Atlanta, June 2013. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  40. A Large-Scale Dataset for Argument Quality Ranking: Construction and Analysis. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(5):7805–7813, April 2020.
  41. Text Data Augmentation for Deep Learning. Journal of Big Data, 8(1):101, December 2021.
  42. Christiane Fellbaum, editor. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998.
  43. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 2018.
  44. Revealing the Dark Secrets of BERT. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 4364–4373, Hong Kong, November 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  45. Well-read students learn better: On the importance of pre-training compact models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.08962v2, 2019.
  46. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017.
  47. Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research, 9(11), 2008.
  48. Electra: Pre-training text encoders as discriminators rather than generators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.10555, 2020.
  49. Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11942, 2019.
  50. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1597–1607. PMLR, 2020.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Amirhossein Farzam (4 papers)
  2. Shashank Shekhar (35 papers)
  3. Isaac Mehlhaff (1 paper)
  4. Marco Morucci (11 papers)
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.