pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.02258 · v1 · pith:H6NJO6Z7new · submitted 2019-07-04 · 💻 cs.IR · cs.LG

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

Anastasios Lytos , Thomas Lagkas , Panagiotis Sarigiannidis , Kalina Bontcheva This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 09:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.IR cs.LG
keywords argumentation miningsocial mediaargument extractioncomputational linguisticssurveyframeworkWeb 2.0
0
0 comments X

The pith

Argumentation mining must shift to flexible schemes that handle the noisy, fragmented arguments typical of social media.

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

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.

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.

What carries the argument

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

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.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are 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.

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.

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.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.02258 by Anastasios Lytos, Kalina Bontcheva, Panagiotis Sarigiannidis, Thomas Lagkas.

Figure 1
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. 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. 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 ↗
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] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Proposed Conceptual Architecture for AM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_5.png] view at source ↗
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.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

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

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.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 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.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5730 in / 979 out tokens · 21631 ms · 2026-05-25T09:24:19.366428+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

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

  9. [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- tics: Human Language Technologies, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2018, pp. 28–34

    work page 2018

  10. [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

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2018.07.001 2018

  11. [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

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2018.03.008 2018

  12. [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

    work page doi:10.1007/s10506-010-9104-x 2011

  13. [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

    work page 2016

  14. [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

    work page

  15. [15]

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

    work page 2018

  16. [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

    work page 2018

  17. [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

    work page 2018

  18. [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

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46218-9 2015

  19. [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

    work page 2010

  20. [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

    work page 2015

  21. [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

    work page doi:10.1017/s0269888907001051 2007

  22. [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

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

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

    work page 2011

  24. [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

    work page 2011

  25. [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

    work page 2016

  26. [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

    work page 2014

  27. [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

    work page 2017

  28. [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

    work page 2016

  29. [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, Louisiana, USA, 2018, pp. 1930–1940

    work page 2018

  30. [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

    work page doi:10.1515/text.1.1988 1988

  31. [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

    work page 2015

  32. [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–

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    doi:10.1016/J.IPM.2018.08.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2018.08.002 2018

  34. [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

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2018 2018

  35. [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

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2017.02.004 2017

  36. [36]

    Giachanou, F

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

    work page doi:10.1145/2938640 2016

  37. [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

    work page doi:10.4018/jcini.2013010101 2013

  38. [38]

    Lippi, P

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

    work page doi:10.1145/2850417 2016

  39. [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. 5427–5433. doi: 10.24963/ijcai.2018/766

    work page doi:10.24963/ijcai.2018/766 2018

  40. [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

    work page 2017

  41. [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

    work page arXiv 2009

  42. [42]

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

    work page 2006

  43. [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

    work page arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

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

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

    work page

  45. [45]

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

    work page

  46. [46]

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

    work page doi:10.1080/00048405985200191 1958

  47. [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

    work page 2018

  48. [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. doi:10.18653/v1/D15-1110

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/d15-1110 2015

  49. [49]

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

    work page 1991

  50. [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

    work page 2015

  51. [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

    work page doi:10.3115/980431.980567 1984

  52. [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

    work page doi:10.1145/3017679 2017

  53. [53]

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

    work page 1987

  54. [54]

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

    work page doi:10.1016/s0364-0213(87)80017-4

  55. [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

    work page doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94 1995

  56. [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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1467-8640.1995.tb00025.x 1995

  57. [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

    work page 2001

  58. [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

    work page 1996

  59. [59]

    Cluster Computing 6(3), 215–226 (Jul 2003), https://doi.org/10.1023/A: 1023588520138

    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

    work page doi:10.1023/a: 2001

  60. [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–

    work page 2000

  61. [61]

    doi:10.1006/IJHC.2000.0429

    work page doi:10.1006/ijhc.2000.0429 2000

  62. [62]

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

    work page

  63. [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

    work page doi:10.1145/3097286.3097288 2017

  64. [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

    work page 2016

  65. [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

    work page 2018

  66. [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

    work page 2017

  67. [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

    work page 2018

  68. [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

    work page 2018

  69. [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

    work page doi:10.1162/coli 2018

  70. [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

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02922-7 2018

  71. [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

    work page doi:10.1145/3003433 2017

  72. [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

    work page 2016

  73. [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: 10.1145/3209978.3210145

    work page doi:10.1145/3209978.3210145 2018

  74. [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

    work page 2016

  75. [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

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-91947-8 2018

  76. [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

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/w16-5609 2016

  77. [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

    work page 2018

  78. [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

    work page 1996

  79. [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

    work page 2004

  80. [80]

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

    work page doi:10.2307/1932409 1945

Showing first 80 references.