Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 141 references

The evolution of argumentation mining: From models to social media and emerging tools

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-25 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Argumentation mining must shift to flexible schemes that handle the noisy, fragmented arguments typical of social media.

desk verdict This is a 2019 survey that organizes argumentation mining literature and sketches a high-level conceptual framework for social media, but the framework stays too vague to test or compare. read the letter →

arxiv 1907.02258 v1 pith:H6NJO6Z7 submitted 2019-07-04 cs.IR cs.LG

Anastasios Lytos , Thomas Lagkas , Panagiotis Sarigiannidis , Kalina Bontcheva This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IRcs.LG
keywords argumentationminingsocialmediaargumentextractioncomputationallinguisticssurveyframeworkWeb2.0
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This survey traces how argumentation mining began with rigid models designed for complete arguments in law and scientific papers. The rise of Web 2.0 and social media has altered both how arguments spread and how they are structured, making those early models insufficient. The authors review existing techniques and tools, classify their strengths, and identify the value of combining tasks and features. They then present a conceptual architecture that breaks the problem into distinct sub-tasks suited to social media text. The core message is that future work requires extensible frameworks able to adapt to the conditions found in online data.

What carries the argument

The proposed conceptual architecture framework, which decomposes argumentation mining into sub-tasks that capture the characteristics of social media text.

What would settle it

An experiment showing that unmodified models originally built for legal or scientific text achieve comparable or superior performance on representative social media corpora.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Existing argumentation mining approaches developed for formal domains must be replaced by more flexible and expandable schemes to meet the needs of social media data; the paper proposes a conceptual architecture framework that identifies the distinct sub-tasks required for this new setting.

Load-bearing premise

Social media has changed the structure and diffusion of arguments so thoroughly that rigid models from law or science can no longer work without major adaptation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Combining multiple tasks and features improves results when processing social media arguments.
  • Classification of existing techniques reveals clear gaps that flexible schemes can address.
  • New tools will need to be extensible rather than domain-specific to remain useful as online platforms evolve.
  • The framework provides a blueprint for breaking down the overall mining process into manageable, adaptable parts.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The framework could be tested by applying its sub-tasks to real-time streams from specific platforms to measure gains in coverage of incomplete arguments.
  • It suggests a path toward integrated systems that combine argumentation mining with related tasks such as stance detection or claim verification.
  • Adoption might encourage development of annotation schemes tailored to short, noisy posts rather than long formal documents.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. This survey reviews argumentation mining approaches originally developed for formal domains such as law and scientific papers, notes changes in data diffusion and argument structure due to Web 2.0 and social media, classifies existing techniques/tools, and proposes a high-level conceptual architecture framework intended to identify sub-tasks and accommodate flexible needs of social-media text.

Significance. A well-executed synthesis of the evolution of argumentation mining could help orient future work toward more adaptable systems; the paper explicitly credits combinations of tasks and features as positive outcomes in prior work.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and concluding framework section] Abstract and final section (proposed framework): the claim that the 'conceptual architecture framework' constitutes 'an argumentation mining scheme able to identify the distinct sub-tasks and capture the needs of social media text' is unsupported; no task ontology, feature set, decision procedure, pseudocode, or application to social-media data is supplied to demonstrate coverage or improvement over the schemes surveyed earlier.
  2. [Classification and proposal sections] Sections classifying prior work and the transition to the proposal: the assertion that the framework 'reveals the need for adopting more flexible and extensible frameworks' reduces to a restatement of the survey premise rather than an outcome derived from applying or comparing the framework against the reviewed baselines.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: 'With the emerge of' should read 'With the emergence of'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive feedback on our survey. We address the major comments point by point below, with proposed revisions to improve clarity and precision in the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and concluding framework section] Abstract and final section (proposed framework): the claim that the 'conceptual architecture framework' constitutes 'an argumentation mining scheme able to identify the distinct sub-tasks and capture the needs of social media text' is unsupported; no task ontology, feature set, decision procedure, pseudocode, or application to social-media data is supplied to demonstrate coverage or improvement over the schemes surveyed earlier.

    Authors: The proposed framework is explicitly described as a high-level conceptual architecture whose primary aim is to synthesize sub-tasks identified across the surveyed literature and to indicate where flexibility is required for social-media text. It is not presented as a complete, executable scheme equipped with ontology, pseudocode, or empirical validation. We acknowledge that the wording in the abstract and conclusion can be read as overstating its concreteness. We will revise both sections to state more precisely that the contribution is a conceptual outline of sub-tasks and adaptability requirements, without claiming implementation-level detail or direct superiority demonstrated by application. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Classification and proposal sections] Sections classifying prior work and the transition to the proposal: the assertion that the framework 'reveals the need for adopting more flexible and extensible frameworks' reduces to a restatement of the survey premise rather than an outcome derived from applying or comparing the framework against the reviewed baselines.

    Authors: The classification of prior work is used to surface recurring limitations (domain specificity, rigid argument structures, limited handling of noisy user-generated text). The framework is offered as a direct response to those observed limitations. We agree, however, that the manuscript does not perform an explicit side-by-side comparison or application of the new framework against the baselines. We will revise the transition paragraphs to make the derivation from the classification findings more explicit and to avoid any implication that the framework itself has been empirically tested against the reviewed systems. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity in survey synthesis or conceptual proposal

full rationale

This is a literature survey that reviews, compares, and classifies existing argumentation mining approaches before offering a high-level conceptual framework as synthesis. No mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, or predictions exist that could reduce to inputs by construction. The central claim that the framework identifies sub-tasks and reveals the need for flexible schemes is a qualitative conclusion drawn from the reviewed literature rather than a self-referential definition, self-citation chain, or renamed known result. No load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems are invoked. The paper is self-contained as a review with independent content from prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a survey paper that synthesizes prior work and offers a conceptual proposal; it introduces no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The evolution of argumentation mining: From models to social media and emerging tools." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H6NJO6Z7

@misc{pith2026190702258,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The evolution of argumentation mining: From models to social media and emerging tools},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H6NJO6Z7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1907.02258}
}
read the original abstract

Argumentation mining is a rising subject in the computational linguistics domain focusing on extracting structured arguments from natural text, often from unstructured or noisy text. The initial approaches on modeling arguments was aiming to identify a flawless argument on specific fields (Law, Scientific Papers) serving specific needs (completeness, effectiveness). With the emerge of Web 2.0 and the explosion in the use of social media both the diffusion of the data and the argument structure have changed. In this survey article, we bridge the gap between theoretical approaches of argumentation mining and pragmatic schemes that satisfy the needs of social media generated data, recognizing the need for adapting more flexible and expandable schemes, capable to adjust to the argumentation conditions that exist in social media. We review, compare, and classify existing approaches, techniques and tools, identifying the positive outcome of combining tasks and features, and eventually propose a conceptual architecture framework. The proposed theoretical framework is an argumentation mining scheme able to identify the distinct sub-tasks and capture the needs of social media text, revealing the need for adopting more flexible and extensible frameworks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.02258 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Whately’s diagram [43] for analysing arguments based on backward reasoning. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Beardsley’s convergent argument scheme [44] provided with an example. The serial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Toulmin’s proposed scheme provided with an example [45]. Based on its detailed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Rhetorical Structure Theory scheme provided with an example [50]. The example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Proposed Conceptual Architecture for AM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

141 extracted references · 141 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. E. Toulmin, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2003. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511840005

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840005 2003

  2. [2]

    Liebeck, K

    M. Liebeck, K. Esau, S. Conrad, What to Do with an Airport? Mining Arguments in the German Online Participation Project Tempelhofer Feld, in: Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Argument Mining (ArgMin- ing2016), Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2016, pp. 144–153. doi:10.18653/v1/W16-2817

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/w16-2817 2016

  3. [3]

    A. A. Addawood, M. N. Bashir, What is Your Evidence? A Study of Con- troversial Topics on Social Media, in: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Argument Mining, Berlin, Germany, 2016, pp. 1–11

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    F. Boltuˇ zi´ c, J.ˇSnajder, Back up your Stance: Recognizing Arguments in Online Discussions, in: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumen- tation Mining, Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2014, pp. 49–58. doi:10.3115/v1/W14-2107

    work page doi:10.3115/v1/w14-2107 2014

  5. [5]

    Kurtanovi´ c, W

    Z. Kurtanovi´ c, W. Maalej, On user rationale in software engineering, Re- quirements Engineering (2018) 1–23 doi:10.1007/s00766-018-0293-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00766-018-0293-2 2018

  6. [6]

    J. Park, C. Cardie, Identifying Appropriate Support for Propositions in Online User Comments, in: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argu- mentation Mining, Baltimore, Maryland USA, 2014, pp. 29–38

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    J. Park, A. Katiyar, B. Yang, Conditional Random Fields for Identifying Appropriate Types of Support for Propositions in Online User Comments, in: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining, Denver, Colorado, 2015, pp. 39–44

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    P. Rajendran, Contextual stance classification of opinions: A step towards enthymeme reconstruction in online reviews, in: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Argument Mining, Berlin, Germany, 2016, pp. 31–39

    work page 2016

Show all 141 references
  1. [9]

    Rajendran, D

    P. Rajendran, D. Bollegala, S. Parsons, Is Something Better than Noth- ing? Automatically Predicting Stance-based Arguments using Deep Learning and Small Labelled Dataset, in: 16th Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguis- ti...

    2018

  2. [10]

    Belbachir, M

    F. Belbachir, M. Boughanem, Using language models to improve opinion detection, Information Processing & Management 54 (6) (2018) 958–968. doi:10.1016/J.IPM.2018.07.001

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Tubishat, N

    M. Tubishat, N. Idris, M. A. Abushariah, Implicit aspect extraction in sentiment analysis: Review, taxonomy, oppportunities, and open chal- lenges, Information Processing & Management 54 (4) (2018) 545–563. doi:10.1016/J.IPM.2018.03.008

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    Mochales, M.-F

    R. Mochales, M.-F. Moens, Argumentation mining, Artificial Intelligence and Law 19 (1) (2011) 1–22. doi:10.1007/s10506-010-9104-x

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    Savelka, K

    J. Savelka, K. D. Ashley, Extracting Case Law Sentences for Argumenta- tion about the Meaning of Statutory Terms, in: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Argument Mining, 2016, pp. 50–59

    2016

  6. [14]

    Lippi, P

    M. Lippi, P. Palka, G. Contissa, F. Lagioia, H.-W. Micklitz, G. Sartor, P. Torroni, CLAUDETTE: an Automated Detector of Potentially Unfair Clauses in Online Terms of Service, arXiv preprint

  7. [15]

    N. L. Green, Towards mining scientific discourse using argumentation schemes, Argument & Computation 9 (2) (2018) 121–135. doi:10.3233/ AAC-180038

    2018

  8. [16]

    Lauscher, G

    A. Lauscher, G. Glavaˇ s, K. Eckert, ArguminSci: A Tool for Analyzing Ar- gumentation and Rhetorical Aspects in Scientific Writing, in: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Argument Mining, Association for Computational Linguistics, Brussels, Belgium, 2018, pp. 22–28

    2018

  9. [17]

    Lauscher, G

    A. Lauscher, G. Glavaˇ s, S. P. Ponzetto, An Argument-Annotated Cor- pus of Scientific Publications, in: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Argument Mining, Association for Computational Linguistics, Brussels, Belgium, 2018, pp. 40–46

    2018

  10. [18]

    Naderi, G

    N. Naderi, G. Hirst, Argumentation Mining in Parliamentary Discourse, in: Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, Interna- tional Workshop on Empathic Computing, Springer, Cham, Bertinoro, Italy, 2015, pp. 16–25. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46218-9{\_}2

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    B. K. Bal, P. S. Dizier, Towards Building Annotated Resources for Ana- lyzing Opinions and Argumentation in News Editorials, in: Proceedings of the Seventh conference on International Language Resources and Eval- uation, Valletta, Malta, 2010, pp. 1152–1158

    2010

  12. [20]

    Sardianos, I

    C. Sardianos, I. M. Katakis, G. Petasis, V. Karkaletsis, Argument Extrac- tion from News, in: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining, Denver, Colorado, 2015, pp. 56–66

    2015

  13. [21]

    C. Reed, D. Walton, F. Macagno, Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence, The Knowledge Engineering Review 22 (01) (2007) 87. doi:10.1017/S0269888907001051

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    Skeppstedt, M

    M. Skeppstedt, M. Sahlgren, C. Paradis, A. Kerren, Unshared task: (Dis)agreement in online debates, in: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Argument Mining, Berlin, Germany, 2016, pp. 154–159

    2016

  15. [23]

    J. B. Freeman, Argument structure : representation and theory, Springer, 2011

    2011

  16. [24]

    Walton, How to Refute an Argument Using Artificial Intelligence, Stud- ies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 23 (36) (2011) 123–154

    D. Walton, How to Refute an Argument Using Artificial Intelligence, Stud- ies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 23 (36) (2011) 123–154

    2011

  17. [25]

    Peldszus, M

    A. Peldszus, M. Stede, Rhetorical structure and argumentation structure in monologue text, in: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Argument Mining, Berlin, Germany, 2016, pp. 103–112

    2016

  18. [26]

    C. Stab, I. Gurevych, Annotating Argument Components and Relations in Persuasive Essays, in: Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th Inter- national Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers ,, Dublin, Ireland, 2014, pp. 1501–1510

    2014

  19. [27]

    N. L. Green, Manual Identification of Arguments with Implicit Conclu- sions Using Semantic Rules for Argument Mining, in: Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Argument Mining, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2017, pp. 73–78

    2017

  20. [28]

    Boltuˇ zic, J

    F. Boltuˇ zic, J. Snajder, Fill the Gap! Analyzing Implicit Premises between Claims from Online Debates, in: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Argument Mining, Berlin, Germany, 2016, pp. 124–133

    2016

  21. [29]

    Habernal, H

    I. Habernal, H. Wachsmuth, I. Gurevych, B. Stein, The Argument Rea- soning Comprehension Task: Identification and Reconstruction of Im- plicit Warrants, in: 16th North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, New Orleans, L...

    2018

  22. [30]

    W. C. Mann, S. A. Thompson, Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization, Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 8 (3) (1988) 243–281. doi:10.1515/text.1.1988. 8.3.243

    1988 doi

  23. [31]

    Reisert, N

    P. Reisert, N. Inoue, N. Okazaki, K. Inui, A Computational Approach for Generating Toulmin Model Argumentation, in: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining, Denver, Colorado, 2015, pp. 45–55

    2015

  24. [32]

    S. Lee, T. Ha, D. Lee, J. H. Kim, Understanding the majority opinion formation process in online environments: An exploratory approach to Facebook, Information Processing & Management 54 (6) (2018) 1115–

    2018

  25. [33]

    doi:10.1016/J.IPM.2018.08.002

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    H. T. Nguyen, M. Le Nguyen, Multilingual opinion mining on YouTube – A convolutional N-gram BiLSTM word embedding, Information Process- ing & Management 54 (3) (2018) 451–462. doi:10.1016/J.IPM.2018. 02.001

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    Chandra Pandey, D

    A. Chandra Pandey, D. Singh Rajpoot, M. Saraswat, Twitter sentiment analysis using hybrid cuckoo search method, Information Processing & Management 53 (4) (2017) 764–779. doi:10.1016/J.IPM.2017.02.004

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    Giachanou, F

    A. Giachanou, F. Crestani, Like It or Not, ACM Computing Surveys 49 (2) (2016) 1–41. doi:10.1145/2938640

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    Peldszus, M

    A. Peldszus, M. Stede, From Argument Diagrams to Argumentation Min- ing in Texts, International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence 7 (1) (2013) 1–31. doi:10.4018/jcini.2013010101

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    Lippi, P

    M. Lippi, P. Torroni, Argumentation Mining, ACM Transactions on In- ternet Technology 16 (2) (2016) 1–25. doi:10.1145/2850417

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    Cabrio, S

    E. Cabrio, S. Villata, Five Years of Argument Mining: a Data-driven Analysis, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence, International Joint Conferences on Ar- tificial Intelligence Organization, California, 2018, pp. 5427–...

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    Habernal, I

    I. Habernal, I. Gurevych, Argumentation Mining in User-Generated Web Discourse, Computational Linguistics 43 (1) (2017) 125–179. doi:10. 1162/COLI{\_}a{\_}00276

    2017

  33. [41]

    R. M. Palau, M.-F. Moens, Argumentation mining, in: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law - ICAIL ’09, ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 2009, p. 98. doi:10.1145/ 1568234.1568246

    2009

  34. [42]

    Aristotle, G. A. Kennedy, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse (2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    Walton, F

    D. Walton, F. Macagno, A classification system for argumentation schemes, Argument & Computation 6 (3) (2016) 219–245. doi:10.1080/ 19462166.2015.1123772

    2016

  36. [44]

    Whately, Elements of logic., Harper & Brothers, New York, USA, 1857

    R. Whately, Elements of logic., Harper & Brothers, New York, USA, 1857

  37. [45]

    M. C. Beardsley, Practical Logic, The Philosophical Quarterly doi:10. 2307/2216487

  38. [46]

    S. E. Toulmin, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, 1958. doi:10.1080/00048405985200191

    1958 doi

  39. [47]

    Kuribayashi, P

    T. Kuribayashi, P. Reisert, N. Inoue, K. Inui, Towards Exploiting Argu- mentative Context for Argumentative Relation Identification, in: Proceed- ings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Society of Language Processing (March 2018), 2018, pp. 284–287

    2018

  40. [48]

    Peldszus, M

    A. Peldszus, M. Stede, Joint prediction in MST-style discourse pars- ing for argumentation mining, in: Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2015, pp. 938–948. do...

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    J. B. Freeman, Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments: a theory of argument structure, Foris Publications, 1991

    1991

  42. [50]

    Wachsmuth, J

    H. Wachsmuth, J. Kiesel, B. Stein, Sentiment Flow - A General Model of Web Review Argumentation, in: Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Lisbon, Portugal, 2015, pp. 601–611

    2015

  43. [51]

    W. C. Mann, Discourse structures for text generation, in: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Computational linguistics -, As- sociation for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, USA, 1984, pp. 367–375. doi:10.3115/980431.980567

    1984 doi

  44. [52]

    Carstens, F

    L. Carstens, F. Toni, Using Argumentation to Improve Classification in Natural Language Problems, ACM Transactions on Internet Technology 17 (3) (2017) 1–23. doi:10.1145/3017679

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    J. L. Pollock, Defeasible reasoning, Cognitive Science 11 (4) (1987) 481–

    1987

  46. [54]

    doi:10.1016/S0364-0213(87)80017-4

    doi

  47. [55]

    P. M. Dung, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Ar- tificial Intelligence 77 (2) (1995) 321–357. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94) 00041-X

    1995 doi

  48. [56]

    Krause, S

    P. Krause, S. Ambler, M. Elvang-Goransson, J. Fox, A Logic of Argu- mentation for Reasoning under Uncertainty, Computational Intelligence 11 (1) (1995) 113–131. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8640.1995.tb00025.x

    1995 doi

  49. [57]

    J. L. Pollock, Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justifica- tion, Artificial Intelligence 133 (1-2) (2001) 233–282. doi:10.1016/ S0004-3702(01)00145-X

    2001

  50. [58]

    S. D. Parsons, N. R. Jennings, Neogotiation Through Argumentation - A Preliminary Report, in: 2nd Int. Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems, Japan, 1996, pp. 267–274

    1996

  51. [59]

    Jennings, P

    N. Jennings, P. Faratin, A. Lomuscio, S. Parsons, M. Wooldridge, C. Sierra, Automated Negotiation: Prospects, Methods and Challenges, Group Decision and Negotiation 10 (2) (2001) 199–215. doi:10.1023/A: 1008746126376

    2001 doi

  52. [60]

    Grasso, A

    F. Grasso, A. Cawsey, R. Jones, Dialectical argumentation to solve con- flicts in advice giving: a case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 53 (6) (2000) 1077–

    2000

  53. [61]

    doi:10.1006/IJHC.2000.0429

    2000 doi

  54. [62]

    C. Stab, T. Miller, I. Gurevych, Cross-topic Argument Mining from Het- erogeneous Sources Using Attention-based Neural Networks, CoRR

  55. [63]

    Addawood, J

    A. Addawood, J. Schneider, M. Bashir, Stance Classification of Twitter Debates: The Encryption Debate as A Use Case, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Social Media & Society, ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 2017, pp. 1–10. doi:10.1145/3097286.3097288

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    T. Bosc, E. Cabrio, S. Villata, Tweeties Squabbling: Positive and Negative Results in Applying Argument Mining on Social Media., in: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, Potsdam, Germany, 2016, pp. 21–32

    2016

  57. [65]

    Deturck, D

    K. Deturck, D. Nouvel, F. Segond, ERTIM@MC2: Diversified Argumen- tative Tweets Retrieval, in: CLEF MC2 2018 Lab Overview, Avignon, France, 2018, pp. 302–308

    2018

  58. [66]

    Dusmanu, E

    M. Dusmanu, E. Cabrio, S. Villata, Argument Mining on Twitter: Ar- guments, Facts and Sources, in: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Copenhagen, Den- mark, 2017, pp. 2317–2322

    2017

  59. [67]

    Sendi, C

    S. Sendi, C. Latiri, Opinion Argumentation based on Combined Informa- tion Retrieval and Topic Modeling., in: Working Notes of CLEF 2018 - Conference and Labs of the Forum, Avignon, France, 2018

    2018

  60. [68]

    Dufour, R

    R. Dufour, R. Mickael, A. Delorme, D. Malinas, LIA@CLEF 2018: Min- ing Events Opinion Argumentation from Raw Unlabeled Twitter Data using Convolutional Neural Network., in: Working Notes of CLEF 2018 - Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum, Avignon, France, 2018

    2018

  61. [69]

    Cocarascu, F

    O. Cocarascu, F. Toni, Combining deep learning and argumentative reasoning for the analysis of social media textual content using small datasets, Computational Linguistics (2018) 1–37 doi:10.1162/coli{\_ }a{\_}00338

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    W. Ma, W. Chao, Z. Luo, X. Jiang, Claim Retrieval in Twitter, in: Web Information Systems Engineering – WISE 2018, Dubai, United Arab Emi- rates, 2018, pp. 297–307. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02922-7{\_}20

    2018 doi

  63. [71]

    S. M. Mohammad, P. Sobhani, S. Kiritchenko, Stance and Sentiment in Tweets, ACM Transactions on Internet Technology 17 (3) (2017) 1–23. doi:10.1145/3003433

    2017 doi

  64. [72]

    Zarrella, A

    G. Zarrella, A. Marsh, MITRE at SemEval-2016 Task 6: Transfer Learn- ing for Stance Detection, in: International Workshop on Semantic Evalu- ation (SemEval-2016), San Diego, California, 2016, p. 458–463

    2016

  65. [73]

    P. Wei, J. Lin, W. Mao, Multi-Target Stance Detection via a Dynamic Memory-Augmented Network, in: The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval - SIGIR ’18, ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 2018, pp. 1229–1232. doi: 10.1145/3...

    2018 doi

  66. [74]

    Ebrahimi, D

    J. Ebrahimi, D. Dou, D. Lowd, Weakly Supervised Tweet Stance Clas- sification by Relational Bootstrapping, in: Proceedings of the 2016 Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Austin, Texas, 2016, p. 1012–1017

    2016

  67. [75]

    M. Lai, V. Patti, G. Ruffo, P. Rosso, Stance Evolution and Twitter Inter- actions in an Italian Political Debate, in: NLDB 2018: Natural Language Processing and Information Systems, Springer, Cham, Paris, France, 2018, pp. 15–27. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-91947-8{\_}2

    2018 doi

  68. [76]

    Johnson, D

    K. Johnson, D. Goldwasser, Identifying Stance by Analyzing Political Dis- course on Twitter, in: Proceedings of the First Workshop on NLP and Computational Social Science, Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2016, pp. 66–75. doi:10.18653/v1/W16-5609

    2016 doi

  69. [77]

    Konstantinovskiy, O

    L. Konstantinovskiy, O. Price, M. Babakar, A. Zubiaga, Towards Auto- mated Factchecking: Developing an Annotation Schema and Benchmark for Consistent Automated Claim Detection, in: EMNLP 2018: Confer- ence on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, 2018

    2018

  70. [78]

    Carletta, Assessing agreement on classification tasks: the kappa statis- tic, Computational Linguistics 22 (2) (1996) 249–254

    J. Carletta, Assessing agreement on classification tasks: the kappa statis- tic, Computational Linguistics 22 (2) (1996) 249–254

    1996

  71. [79]

    krippendorff, Measuring the Reliability of Qualitative Text Analy- sis Data, Quality & Quantity 38 (6) (2004) 787–800

    K. krippendorff, Measuring the Reliability of Qualitative Text Analy- sis Data, Quality & Quantity 38 (6) (2004) 787–800. doi:10.1007/ s11135-004-8107-7

    2004

  72. [80]

    L. R. Dice, Measures of the Amount of Ecologic Association Between Species, Ecology 26 (3) (1945) 297–302. doi:10.2307/1932409

    1945 doi

  73. [81]

    J. L. Fleiss, Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters., Psy- chological Bulletin 76 (5) (1971) 378–382. doi:10.1037/h0031619

    1971 doi

  74. [82]

    T. Bosc, E. Cabrio, S. Villata, DART: a Dataset of Arguments and their Relations on Twitter - Semantic Scholar, in: LREC, Portoroˇ z, Slovenia, 2016, pp. 1258–1263

    2016

  75. [83]

    J. W. Pennebaker, M. E. Francis, Cognitive, Emotional, and Language Processes in Disclosure, Cognition and Emotion 10 (6) (1996) 601–626. doi:10.1080/026999396380079

    1996 doi

  76. [84]

    J. W. Pennebaker, Writing About Emotional Experiences as a Therapeu- tic Process, Psychological Science 8 (3) (1997) 162–166. doi:10.1111/j. 1467-9280.1997.tb00403.x

    1997 doi

  77. [85]

    W. Guo, H. Li, H. Ji, M. Diab, Linking Tweets to News: A Framework to Enrich Short Text Data in Social Media, in: Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguists, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2013, p. 239–249

    2013

  78. [86]

    Tan, Spot the lie: Detecting untruthful online opinion on twitter., Ph.D

    S. Tan, Spot the lie: Detecting untruthful online opinion on twitter., Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London (2017)

    2017

  79. [87]

    Goudas, C

    T. Goudas, C. Louizos, G. Petasis, V. Karkaletsis, Argument Extraction from News, Blogs, and Social Media, in: Artificial Intelligence: Methods and Applications.SETN 2014., Springer, Cham, 2014, pp. 287–299. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-07064-3{\_}23

    2014 doi

  80. [88]

    Roitman, S

    H. Roitman, S. Hummel, E. Rabinovich, B. Sznajder, N. Slonim, E. Aha- roni, On the Retrieval of Wikipedia Articles Containing Claims on Con- troversial Topics, in: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web - WWW ’16 Companion, ACM Press, New ...

    2016 doi

  81. [89]

    Lawrence, M

    J. Lawrence, M. Snaith, B. Konat, K. Budzynska, C. Reed, Debating Technology for Dialogical Argument, ACM Transactions on Internet Tech- nology 17 (3) (2017) 1–23. doi:10.1145/3007210

    2017 doi

  82. [90]

    Morio, K

    G. Morio, K. Fujita, Annotating Online Civic Discussion Threads for Ar- gument Mining, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence 2018 (WI’18), IEEE, Santiago, Chile, 2018, pp. 801–807. doi:10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2017.123

    2018 doi

  83. [91]

    Galassi, M

    A. Galassi, M. Lippi, P. Torroni, Argumentative Link Prediction using Residual Networks and Multi-Objective Learning, in: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Argument Mining, Brussels, Belgium, 2018, pp. 1–10

    2018

  84. [92]

    Eidelman, B

    V. Eidelman, B. Grom, Argument Identification in Public Comments from eRulemaking (5 2019). doi:10.1145/3322640.3326714

    2019 doi

  85. [93]

    M. Lai, M. Tambuscio, V. Patti, G. Ruffo, P. Rosso, Extracting Graph Topological Information and Users’ Opinion, Springer, Cham, 2017, pp. 112–118. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-65813-1{\_}10

    2017 doi

  86. [94]

    Maynard, I

    D. Maynard, I. Roberts, M. A. Greenwood, D. Rout, K. Bontcheva, A framework for real-time semantic social media analysis, Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 44 (2017) 75–88. doi:10.1016/J.WEBSEM.2017.05.002

    2017 doi

  87. [95]

    Cortis, A

    K. Cortis, A. Freitas, T. Daudert, M. H¨ urlimann, M. Zarrouk, S. Hand- schuh, B. Davis, SemEval-2017 Task 5: Fine-Grained Sentiment Analysis on Financial Microblogs and News, in: Proceedings of the 11th Inter- national Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SemEval-2017), Vancouve...

    2017

  88. [96]

    Schulz, S

    C. Schulz, S. Eger, J. Daxenberger, T. Kahse, I. Gurevych, Multi- Task Learning for Argumentation Mining in Low-Resource Settings, in: NAACL HLT 2018, 2018, pp. 35–41

    2018

  89. [97]

    Lawrence, J

    J. Lawrence, J. Park, K. Budzynska, C. Cardie, B. Konat, C. Reed, Us- ing Argumentative Structure to Interpret Debates in Online Deliberative Democracy and eRulemaking, ACM Transactions on Internet Technology 17 (3) (2017) 1–22. doi:10.1145/3032989

    2017 doi

  90. [98]

    Grˇ car, D

    M. Grˇ car, D. Cherepnalkoski, I. Mozetiˇ c, P. Kralj Novak, Stance and in- fluence of Twitter users regarding the Brexit referendum, Computational Social Networks 4 (1) (2017) 6. doi:10.1186/s40649-017-0042-6

    2017 doi

  91. [99]

    Lytos, T

    A. Lytos, T. Lagkas, P. Sarigiannidis, K. Bontcheva, Argumentation Min- ing: Exploiting Multiple Sources and Background Knowledge, in: 12th South East European Doctoral Student Conference DSC2018, 2018

    2018

  92. [100]

    Liu, Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining, Morgan & Claypool Pub- lishers, 2012

    B. Liu, Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining, Morgan & Claypool Pub- lishers, 2012

    2012

  93. [101]

    W. Wei, X. Zhang, X. Liu, W. Chen, T. Wang, pkudblab at SemEval-2016 Task 6 : A Specific Convolutional Neural Network System for Effective Stance Detection, in: Proceedings of SemEval-2016, San Diego, California, 2016, pp. 384–388

    2016

  94. [102]

    S. M. Mohammad, S. Kiritchenko, P. Sobhani, X. Zhu, C. Cherry, SemEval-2016 Task 6: Detecting Stance in Tweets, in: International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2016), San Diego, Califor- nia, 2016, pp. 31–41

    2016

  95. [103]

    Rinott, L

    R. Rinott, L. Dankin, C. Alzate Perez, M. M. Khapra, E. Aharoni, N. Slonim, Show Me Your Evidence - an Automatic Method for Context Dependent Evidence Detection, in: Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Association for Computa...

    2015 doi

  96. [104]

    R. Levy, Y. Bilu, D. Hershcovich, E. Aharoni, N. Slonim, Context Depen- dent Claim Detection, in: COLING - International Committee on Com- putational Linguistics, Dublin, Ireland, 2014, pp. 1489–1500

    2014

  97. [105]

    Stenetorp, S

    P. Stenetorp, S. Pyysalo, G. Topi, T. Ohta, S. Ananiadou, J. i. Tsujii, BRAT: a Web-based Tool for NLP-Assisted Text Annotation, in: Proceed- ings of the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Avignon, France, 2012, pp. 102–107

    2012

  98. [106]

    Stenetorp, G

    P. Stenetorp, G. Topi´ c, S. Pyysalo, T. Ohta, J.-D. Kim, J. Tsujii, BioNLP Shared Task 2011: supporting resources, in: Proceedings of the BioNLP Shared Task 2011 Workshop, Association for Computational Linguistics, Portland, Oregon, 2011, pp. 112–120

    2011

  99. [107]

    Eckart De Castilho, E

    R. Eckart De Castilho, E. Ujdricza-Maydt, S. M. Yimam, S. Hartmann, I. Gurevych, A. Frank, C. Biemann, A Web-based Tool for the Integrated Annotation of Semantic and Syntactic Structures, in: Proceedings of the Workshop on Language Technology Resources and Tools for Digital Hu...

    2016

  100. [108]

    Sonntag, M

    J. Sonntag, M. Stede, GraPAT: a Tool for Graph Annotations, in: Pro- ceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2014), Reykjavik, Iceland, 2014, pp. 4141–4151

    2014

  101. [109]

    M. O’Donnell, RSTTool 2.4 – A Markup Tool for Rhetorical Structure Theory, in: Proceedings of the International Natural Language Genera- tion Conference (INLG’2000), Mitzpe Ramon, Israel, 2000, pp. 253 – 256

    2000

  102. [110]

    Cunningham, V

    H. Cunningham, V. Tablan, A. Roberts, K. Bontcheva, Getting More Out of Biomedical Documents with GATE’s Full Lifecycle Open Source Text Analytics, PLoS Computational Biology 9 (2) (2013) e1002854. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002854

    2013 doi

  103. [111]

    Bontcheva, H

    K. Bontcheva, H. Cunningham, I. Roberts, A. Roberts, V. Tablan, N. Aswani, G. Gorrell, GATE Teamware: a web-based, collaborative text annotation framework, Language Resources and Evaluation 47 (4) (2013) 1007–1029. doi:10.1007/s10579-013-9215-6

    2013 doi

  104. [112]

    Kirschner, J

    C. Kirschner, J. Eckle-Kohler, I. Gurevych, Linking the Thoughts: Analy- sis of Argumentation Structures in Scientific Publications, in: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining, Denver, Colorado, 2015, pp. 1–11

    2015

  105. [113]

    Saint-Dizier, Processing natural language arguments with the TextCoop platform, Argument & Computation 3 (1) (2012) 49–82

    P. Saint-Dizier, Processing natural language arguments with the TextCoop platform, Argument & Computation 3 (1) (2012) 49–82. doi:10.1080/ 19462166.2012.663539

    2012

  106. [114]

    Eryiit, F

    U. Eryiit, F. Samet, C. Etin, M. Yanık, T. Temel, TURKSENT: A Sen- timent Annotation Tool for Social Media, in: Proceedings of the 7th Lin- guistic Annotation Workshop & Interoperability with Discourse, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2013, pp. 131–134

    2013

  107. [115]

    S. M. Yimam, I. Gurevych, R. Eckart De Castilho, C. Biemann, WebAnno: A Flexible, Web-based and Visually Supported System for Distributed An- notations, in: Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2013, pp. 1–6

    2013

  108. [116]

    Lippi, P

    M. Lippi, P. Torroni, MARGOT: A web server for argumentation mining, Expert Systems with Applications 65 (2016) 292–303. doi:10.1016/J. ESWA.2016.08.050

    2016 doi

  109. [117]

    Janier Mathilde, Lawrence John, Reed Chris, OVA+: An argument analy- sis interface, in: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Com- putational Models of Argument (COMMA’14)., 2014, p. 463–464

    2014

  110. [118]

    Snaith Mark, Reed Chris, TOAST: Online ASPIC+ implementation, in: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), Vienna, Austria, 2012

    2012

  111. [119]

    Wachsmuth, M

    H. Wachsmuth, M. Potthast, K. Al Khatib, Y. Ajjour, J. Puschmann, J. Qu, J. Dorsch, V. Morari, J. Bevendorff, B. Stein, Building an Argu- ment Search Engine for the Web, in: Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Argument Mining, Association for Computational Linguistics, Strouds- ...

    2017 doi

  112. [120]

    C. Stab, J. Daxenberger, C. Stahlhut, T. Miller, B. Schiller, C. Tauch- mann, S. Eger, I. Gurevych, ArgumenText: Searching for Arguments in Heterogeneous Sources, in: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguis-...

    2018 doi

  113. [121]

    van Gelder, The rationale for RationaleTM, Law, Probability and Risk 6 (1-4) (2007) 23–42

    T. van Gelder, The rationale for RationaleTM, Law, Probability and Risk 6 (1-4) (2007) 23–42. doi:10.1093/lpr/mgm032

    2007 doi

  114. [122]

    Manning, M

    C. Manning, M. Surdeanu, J. Bauer, J. Finkel, S. Bethard, D. Mc- Closky, The Stanford CoreNLP Natural Language Processing Toolkit, in: Proceedings of 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, Association for Com- putational ...

    2014 doi

  115. [123]

    C. Reed, G. Rowe, Araucaria: Software For Argument Analysis, Diagram- ming And Representation, International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools 13 (04) (2004) 961–979. doi:10.1142/S0218213004001922

    2004 doi

  116. [124]

    Snaith, J

    M. Snaith, J. Lawrence, C. Reed, Mixed Initiative Argument in Public Deliberation, in: International Conference on Online Deliberation, Leeds, UK, 2010, pp. 2–13

    2010

  117. [125]

    C. Reed, S. Wells, Dialogical Argument as an Interface to Complex De- bates, IEEE Intelligent Systems 22 (6) (2007) 60–65. doi:10.1109/MIS. 2007.106

    2007 doi

  118. [126]

    C. Reed, K. Budzynska, R. Duthie, M. Janier, B. Konat, J. Lawrence, A. Pease, M. Snaith, The Argument Web: an Online Ecosystem of Tools, Systems and Services for Argumentation, Philosophy & Technology 30 (2) (2017) 137–160. doi:10.1007/s13347-017-0260-8

    2017 doi

  119. [127]

    F. Bex, M. Snaith, J. Lawrence, C. Reed, ArguBlogging: An application for the Argument Web, Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 25 (2014) 9–15. doi:10.1016/J.WEBSEM.2014.02. 002

    2014 doi

  120. [128]

    Lippi, P

    M. Lippi, P. Torroni, Context-independent claim detection for argument mining, in: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Artifi- cial Intelligence, AAAI Press = The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Press, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2015, pp. 185–191

    2015

  121. [129]

    Sbarski, T

    P. Sbarski, T. van Gelder, K. Marriott, D. Prager, A. Bulka, Visu- alizing Argument Structure, in: International Symposium on Visual Computing 2008: Visualizing Argument Structure, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2008, pp. 129–138. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-540-8963...

    2008

  122. [130]

    Marriott, P

    K. Marriott, P. Sbarski, T. van Gelder, D. Prager, A. Bulka, Hi-Trees and Their Layout, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 17 (3) (2011) 290–304. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2010.45

    2011 doi

  123. [131]

    T. V. Gelder, Learning to reason: a Reason!-Able approach, in: Cog- nitive Science in Australia, 2000: Proceedings of the Fifth Australasian Cognitive Science Society Conference, Adelaide, 2000

    2000

  124. [132]

    Al-Khatib, H

    K. Al-Khatib, H. Wachsmuth, M. Hagen, J. K¨ ohler, B. Stein, Cross- Domain Mining of Argumentative Text through Distant Supervision, in: Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2016, San Diego, California, 2016, pp. 1395– 1404

    2016

  125. [133]

    Wachsmuth, B

    H. Wachsmuth, B. Stein, A Universal Model for Discourse-Level Argumen- tation Analysis, ACM Transactions on Internet Technology 17 (3) (2017) 1–24. doi:10.1145/2957757

    2017 doi

  126. [134]

    Karimi, D

    M. Karimi, D. Jannach, M. Jugovac, News recommender systems – Survey and roads ahead, Information Processing & Management 54 (6) (2018) 1203–1227. doi:10.1016/J.IPM.2018.04.008

    2018 doi

  127. [135]

    F. Boltuˇ zi´ c, J.ˇSnajder, Identifying Prominent Arguments in Online De- bates Using Semantic Textual Similarity, in: 2nd Workshop on Argumen- tation Mining (ARG-MINING 2015), Denver, Colorado, USA, 2015, pp. 110–115

    2015

  128. [136]

    X. Duan, M. Liao, X. Zhao, W. Wu, P. Lv, An Unsupervised Joint Model for Claim Detection, in: International Conference on Cogni- tive Systems and Signal Processing: Cognitive Systems and Signal Processing, Springer, Singapore, 2019, pp. 197–209. doi:10.1007/ 978-981-13-7983-3{\_}18

    2019

  129. [137]

    Shnarch, C

    E. Shnarch, C. Alzate, L. Dankin, M. Gleize, Y. Hou, L. Choshen, R. Aharonov, N. Slonim, Will it Blend? Blending Weak and Strong La- beled Data in a Neural Network for Argumentation Mining, in: Proceed- ings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lingu...

    2018

  130. [138]

    N. F. F. D. Silva, L. F. S. Coletta, E. R. Hruschka, A Survey and Compar- ative Study of Tweet Sentiment Analysis via Semi-Supervised Learning, ACM Computing Surveys 49 (1) (2016) 1–26. doi:10.1145/2932708

    2016 doi

  131. [139]

    Day, Y.-D

    M.-Y. Day, Y.-D. Lin, Deep Learning for Sentiment Analysis on Google Play Consumer Review, in: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Infor- mation Reuse and Integration (IRI), IEEE, San Diego, CA, USA, 2017, pp. 382–388. doi:10.1109/IRI.2017.79

    2017 doi

  132. [140]

    B. C. Wallace, D. K. Choe, E. Charniak, Sparse, contextually informed models for irony detection: Exploiting user communities, entities and sen- timent, in: 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natur...

    2015

  133. [141]

    B. C. Wallace, D. K. Choe, L. Kertz, E. Charniak, Humans require context to infer ironic intent (so computers probably do, too), in: 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 2014, pp. 512–516

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed May 25, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.