Contrastive Reasons Detection and Clustering from Online Polarized Debate

Amine Trabelsi; Osmar R. Zaiane

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Contrastive Reasons Detection and Clustering from Online Polarized Debate

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that an unsupervised pipeline can extract and cluster the reasons given by opposing sides in online debates, producing a two-column contrastive digest table without stance labels.

desk verdict The pipeline is a real advance, but the paper's 'significant improvement' claim rests on tables with no error bars or significance tests. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00648 v1 pith:LJ7MOH7Z submitted 2019-08-01 cs.CL cs.AIcs.IRcs.LGcs.SI

Amine Trabelsi , Osmar R. Zaiane This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.IRcs.LGcs.SI

keywords contrastivesummarizationargumentfacettopic-viewpointmodelonlinedebatephraseminingunsupervisedclusteringstancedetectionrebuttal

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 paper tries to show that the reasons people give on opposing sides of an online debate can be found and arranged into a two-column digest table without any supervision. It claims that detecting argument facets as multiword phrases, rather than single words, and using who-replies-to-whom as a signal of disagreement, is enough to cluster extracted reasons by viewpoint. On CreateDebate, 4Forums, and Reddit data, the proposed pipeline outperforms two existing contrastive summarization methods (TAM and LAM_LEX) and its own unigram version in relevance, clustering accuracy, and summary informativeness. The payoff, if true, is a tool that turns raw forum threads into a concise pro-versus-con overview of an issue without stance labels or training data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is PhAITV, the Phrase Author Interaction Topic-Viewpoint model: a generative model in which an author first chooses a viewpoint, and each multiword phrase in a post is either drawn from a background distribution or assigned a topic and drawn from a topic-viewpoint word distribution. Reply structure enters through equation (1), which makes the probability that a reply is a rebuttal depend on whether the reply's viewpoint differs from the viewpoints of the parent author's posts; the model fixes the rebuttal indicator $\mathrm{Rb}=1$ for all cross-author replies, so the viewpoint sampler is pushed to choose viewpoints opposed to a post's parents and children. This adversarial pressure, combined with topic-viewpoint assignment of phrases, is what lets the pipeline separate the reasons of the two sides without stance labels.

What would settle it

Run the same pipeline on a debate corpus in which a manual rating shows that fewer than half of replies attack the previous post, then compare the inferred viewpoint clusters with the authors' known stances. If clustering accuracy and relevance rates fall to the level of the unigram or random baselines, the reply-as-rebuttal assumption is doing the work and the claimed advantage does not transfer beyond debate forums with high rebuttal rates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a topic-viewpoint model operating on phrases instead of unigrams, augmented with the assumption that a reply usually rebuts the author it answers, can jointly detect argument facets and assign posts to viewpoints. In the PhAITV model, each phrase is assigned a topic and a viewpoint; phrases assigned to the same topic-viewpoint cell are then grouped by word overlap into clusters treated as argument facets, and the most representative phrase becomes a facet label. A final extraction step picks a short sentence from the posts that realizes each label, filling the digest table. The paper reports that this phrase-based pipeline yields higher relevance rates and better viewpoint clustering than TAM and LAM_LEX on all tested datasets, and that its ROUGE-2 summary scores approach those of correct reference summaries on one dataset. The authors present the result as evidence that facet-guided phrase modeling plus reply interactions is a productive route to contrastive summarization of polarized text.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that almost every reply in a debate attacks the post it replies to, so it treats all cross-author replies as rebuttals; if a forum's replies are mostly supportive or neutral, the inferred viewpoints and the clustering built on them become unreliable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A purely unsupervised pipeline can output pro/con digest tables with reasons relevant enough for human annotators to infer the stance of each sentence.
Multiword phrase modeling carries much of the gain: PhAITV beats its unigram counterpart AITV on relevance and summary informativeness, so facet detection benefits from phrase-level units.
Author reply interactions are a usable stance signal: even without true viewpoints, the model approaches the performance of PhAITV_view, where true viewpoints are given, especially on negative predictive value.
The pipeline extends to datasets without any reason or stance annotations: it produced digest tables for 4Forums and Reddit datasets where only text and reply structure are available.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension is to replace the fixed rebuttal indicator with a learned or lexicon-based disagreement score, which could let the same model work on social media platforms where supportive or neutral replies are common.
The grouping stage could be retested with noun-phrase-aware or hyponym-based similarity instead of verb-expression preference, which might recover general facets like 'birth control' more consistently.
Because the paper omits a separate evaluation of post-level viewpoint assignments, a testable next step is to compare PhAITV's inferred post stances against known author stances on the 4Forums data to see whether the viewpoint clustering is accurate beyond the final digest.
The ROUGE comparison on CreateDebate is built from reference summaries that combine one sentence per annotated reason label, so a direct gold-standard evaluation on 4Forums would test whether the summary informativeness advantage generalizes beyond reason-annotated data.

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, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline: the paper's central idea is better than its abstract's statistical claim. PhAITV, which extends the authors' AITV from unigrams to mined phrases and adds a grouping-and-labeling layer plus a sentence-extraction step, is a genuine step forward in unsupervised contrastive summarization of online debates. The example digests in Table 5 look substantially more useful than the TAM and LAM_LEX outputs.

What's genuinely good: the model is coherent, the Gibbs sampler equations are laid out, and the evaluation uses multiple datasets (CreateDebate, 4Forums, a scraped Reddit thread), human annotation for relevance and stance clustering, and a degenerate unigram baseline to isolate the phrase-modeling contribution. That is more than most papers in this area do.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test points: the phrase "significant improvement" appears in the abstract and the body, but there are no significance tests, confidence intervals, or variances anywhere in Tables 3 and 4. The paper reports averages and medians over 5-10 runs. A paired t-test or Wilcoxon test would be the obvious addition. The margins look large, so I'd bet the main comparisons survive, but the paper doesn't demonstrate it. That is a load-bearing gap because the headline claim is statistical.

A second, minor issue: the number of topics K is chosen by NPMI coherence on the test data, and hyperparameters are tuned on the same data. That leaks test information and nudges results upward. It's common in this literature, but it weakens the "unsupervised" claim slightly.

The Rb=1 assumption — every reply to another author is a rebuttal — looks crude but is honestly scoped: the authors cite the 67-78% rebuttal rates in their own data and note in the conclusion that other platforms may differ. I'd call that a moderate limitation, not a fatal one.

No code or data are released, which makes the human evaluation hard to check. Again, not unusual for 2019, but it limits reproducibility.

Who should read it: anyone in argument mining or opinion summarization who wants an unsupervised alternative to supervised pipelines. It deserves a serious referee, because the core model is sound and the evaluation gap is fixable with better reporting rather than a redesign. I'd accept it with major revisions, mainly calling for significance testing and held-out model selection.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an unsupervised pipeline for extracting contrastive sentential reasons from online debate forums. The pipeline consists of a phrase-mining stage, a new Phrase Author Interaction Topic-Viewpoint (PhAITV) model with collapsed Gibbs sampling, a grouping and facet-labeling stage, and an extraction stage that produces a two-column digest table of reasons supporting opposing viewpoints. The authors evaluate the pipeline on CreateDebate, 4Forums, and Reddit datasets, comparing against TAM, LAM_LEX, and a unigram AITV variant. Evaluation covers ROUGE-based informativeness, human-judged relevance, and viewpoint clustering accuracy. The abstract claims that the pipeline 'shows a significant improvement over state-of-the-art methods,' but the reported evaluation does not include the statistical machinery needed to support that claim.

Significance. If the empirical claims held, this would be a useful contribution to unsupervised contrastive summarization and argument mining. The model is clearly specified, the pipeline is concrete and reproducible in structure, and the evaluation uses multiple datasets, external baselines, and human annotations. The phrase-level topic-viewpoint modeling and the use of author-reply interactions are plausible design choices. However, the strongest claim in the abstract is currently not supported by the evidence: no confidence intervals, variance measures, or hypothesis tests are reported for the headline comparisons, and model selection is performed on the evaluation data. These issues are load-bearing because the paper's contribution is explicitly framed as a significant empirical improvement. The Rb=1 assumption is a limitation that the authors acknowledge and that is partially supported by dataset statistics, so I view it as secondary to the missing statistical support.

major comments (3)

[Section 4.4, Table 3 and Section 4.5, Table 4] The abstract's claim of 'significant improvement' is not supported by the reported statistics. Table 3 reports only averages over 10 runs without standard deviations or confidence intervals, and Table 4 reports medians over 5 runs without any measure of dispersion. No paired significance test is reported for any comparison between PhAITV and the baselines. This matters in practice: on Gay Rights, PhAITV's ROUGE-2 values (2.7 recall, 2.8 F-measure) are identical to AITV's, so the headline claim cannot be assessed from the numbers as presented. Please provide per-run results, confidence intervals, or paired tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank or bootstrap) for the comparisons underlying the abstract's claim.
[Section 4.2] Model selection is performed on the same data used for evaluation. The authors report choosing K by measuring NPMI coherence on the Topic-Viewpoint clusters of words and selecting hyperparameters by testing combinations that give a 'satisfying overall performance' on the datasets. Since the baselines are run with default parameters while PhAITV is tuned on the evaluation data, the comparison may be biased in PhAITV's favor. Please use a held-out validation split or a nested cross-validation procedure for K and hyperparameter selection, or report a sensitivity analysis showing that the headline conclusions are stable across reasonable choices of K and the Dirichlet parameters.
[Section 3.2, Eq. (1) and Table 2] The rebuttal variable Rb is fixed to 1 for every reply, and the viewpoint sampling in Eq. (2) depends on this assumption. While the CreateDebate and 4Forums columns of Table 2 report rebuttal rates between 66% and 78%, no rebuttal rate is reported for the Reddit dataset, and the model is applied to Reddit under the same fixed-Rb assumption. Please report the rebuttal rate for the Reddit data or include a sensitivity analysis that relaxes the Rb=1 assumption, and state how the relevance and clustering results change under alternative settings.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The abstract contains a typo ('conv eyed'), which should read 'conveyed'.
[Section 3.2, Eqs. (3) and (4)] The product indices in the Gibbs sampling equations are written as starting at j=0, but the text describes sampling words within a phrase of length M; please clarify the index bounds and define all count variables explicitly at first use.
[Algorithm 1] The phrase 'grp.cumulatif NbAssign' mixes French and English and is not defined; it should be 'grp.cumulativeNbAssign' with a formal definition. Also, the containment step in lines 21-30 may transfer assignments from a phrase to multiple containing phrases; please specify how conflicts are resolved when more than one containing phrase is a Verbal Expression.
[Section 4.3] Report inter-annotator agreement for the argument-facet annotation task. The paper reports 'average Kappa agreement' of 0.66 only for the relevance task in Section 4.5, but no agreement measure is given for the two annotators in Section 4.3.
[Table 4] The phrase 'notwithstanding PhAITV view' in the table note is unclear; please rephrase to state that PhAITVview is an oracle variant with true viewpoint labels, and that bold-face comparison excludes it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pipeline's outputs are evaluated against external annotations and baselines, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained at the level of the claimed contribution. PhAITV is defined by a generative process and Gibbs-sampling equations (Eqs. 1-4) whose inputs are raw posts, author identities, reply structure, and fixed hyperparameters; none of these inputs is the evaluation target. The Rb=1 rebuttal assumption is an explicit modeling choice supported by dataset statistics (Table 2) and is not derived from the ROUGE, relevance, or clustering metrics. Hyperparameter and topic-count selection use NPMI coherence on the model's own output, not the reported evaluation labels, so no reported advantage reduces to a fit to the benchmark. Evaluation uses external resources: Hasan and Ng's CreateDebate reason annotations, the Internet Argument Corpus stance labels, Reddit data, and human annotation, so the reported gains over TAM, LAM_LEX, and AITV are not forced by construction. The authors' prior work appears only as terminology citations and as the AITV ablation baseline; there is no load-bearing self-citation, no uniqueness claim, and no predicted quantity that reduces to a fitted parameter. The abstract's word 'significant' lacks supporting significance tests, but that is a statistical-evidence concern, not a circularity concern under the stated criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard topic-modeling latent variables plus a set of domain heuristics. The main unvalidated inputs are the rebuttal assumption, the phrase-facet equivalence, the verbal-expression preference, and the reason extraction heuristic, all stated in Sections 3.2 through 3.4. The free parameters are model hyperparameters and K, selected by hand or coherence on the test data.

free parameters (8)

topic count K = 30, 10, 10, 50 for PhAITV, LAM_LEX, TAM, AITV respectively
K is chosen per model and dataset as the value maximizing NPMI coherence of topic-viewpoint clusters; this is model selection on the same data used for the reported evaluation.
Dirichlet hyperparameter alpha = 0.1
Set by hand in Section 4.2; symmetric prior on post-topic distributions.
Dirichlet hyperparameter beta = 1
Set by hand; prior on topic-viewpoint word distributions.
viewpoint prior gamma = 1
Set by hand; prior on author-viewpoint distributions.
background word prior beta_B = 0.1
Set by hand; prior on background word distribution.
rebuttal smoothing parameter eta = 0.01
Set by hand in Equation 1.
route variable prior omega = 10
Set by hand; Bernoulli prior for topical vs background phrases.
phrase significance threshold = not specified, set empirically
Phrase merging threshold in Section 3.1 is 'set empirically (set according to [6] implementation)', but no value is given.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Each author draws a viewpoint from a fixed per-author distribution, and each post draws a topic distribution, so latent viewpoint and topic variables explain word choice.
This is the core generative assumption of PhAITV (Section 3.2), inherited from topic-viewpoint models; if posts do not reflect such latent stances, viewpoint clusters are meaningless.
domain assumption Every reply to another author's post is modeled as a rebuttal (Rb=1), and the probability a rebuttal targets a viewpoint depends on opposition counts in Equation 1.
Section 3.2 sets Rb=1 for all replies except self-replies based on observed reply statistics; the model's adversarial viewpoint sampling (Equation 2) rests on this.
ad hoc to paper Lexical overlap between phrases groups them into argument facets, and Verbal Expressions are preferred as facet labels.
Algorithm 1 implements this; Section 3.3 states the assumption. It is a heuristic with no independent validation beyond the small annotation study.
ad hoc to paper The most frequent overlapping word set across a label's sentences, combined with the shortest sentence, yields a representative sentential reason.
Algorithm 2; no systematic study supports the heuristic.
domain assumption NPMI coherence is a valid criterion for selecting K.
Section 4.2 uses NPMI coherence to pick the best topic count; coherence is a proxy for interpretability, not necessarily for downstream reason quality.
domain assumption Human annotations of whether a sentence contains a stance-inferable reason are reliable enough to score relevance.
Section 4.5, with reported kappa 0.66.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Contrastive Reasons Detection and Clustering from Online Polarized Debate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LJ7MOH7Z

@misc{pith2026190800648,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Contrastive Reasons Detection and Clustering from Online Polarized Debate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LJ7MOH7Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00648}
}

read the original abstract

This work tackles the problem of unsupervised modeling and extraction of the main contrastive sentential reasons conveyed by divergent viewpoints on polarized issues. It proposes a pipeline approach centered around the detection and clustering of phrases, assimilated to argument facets using a novel Phrase Author Interaction Topic-Viewpoint model. The evaluation is based on the informativeness, the relevance and the clustering accuracy of extracted reasons. The pipeline approach shows a significant improvement over state-of-the-art methods in contrastive summarization on online debate datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00648 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Plate Notation of The PhAITV model For the inference of the model’s parameters, we use the collapsed Gibbs sampling. For all our parameters, we set fixed symmetric Dirichlet priors. According to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[1]

In: LREC (2016)

Abbott, R., Ecker, B., Anand, P., Walker, M.A.: Internet a rgument corpus 2.0: An sql schema for dialogic social media and the corpora to go w ith it. In: LREC (2016)

work page 2016
[2]

Journal of Machine Learning Research 3, 993–1022 (2003)

Blei, D.M., Ng, A.Y., Jordan, M.I.: Latent dirichlet allo cation. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3, 993–1022 (2003)

work page 2003
[3]

In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argument ation Mining

Boltuˇ zi´ c, F.,ˇSnajder, J.: Back up your stance: Recognizing arguments in o nline dis- cussions. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argument ation Mining. pp. 49–

work page
[4]

In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining

Boltuˇ zi´ c, F.,ˇSnajder, J.: Identifying prominent arguments in online deb ates using semantic textual similarity. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining. pp. 110–115. Association for Computational Lingui stics, Denver, CO (June 2015), http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W15-0514

work page 2015
[5]

Proceedings of GSCL pp

Bouma, G.: Normalized (pointwise) mutual information in collocation extraction. Proceedings of GSCL pp. 31–40 (2009)

work page 2009
[6]

El-Kishky, A., Song, Y., Wang, C., Voss, C.R., Han, J.: Sca l- able topical phrase mining from text corpora. Proc. VLDB End ow. 8(3), 305–316 (Nov 2014). https://doi.org/10.14778/27355 08.2735519, http://dx.doi.org/10.14778/2735508.2735519

work page arXiv 2014
[7]

Erkan, G., Radev, D.R.: Lexrank: Graph-based lexical cen trality as salience in text summarization. J. Artif. Intell. Res.(JAIR) 22(1), 457–479 (2004)

work page 2004
[8]

Computational Linguistics 43(1), 125–179 (2017)

Habernal, I., Gurevych, I.: Argumentation mining in user-generated web discourse. Computational Linguistics 43(1), 125–179 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI a 00276, https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00276

doi:10.1162/coli 2017

Show all 29 references

[9]

In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP )

Hasan, K.S., Ng, V.: Why are you taking this stance? identi fying and clas- sifying reasons in ideological debates. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP ). pp. 751–

2014
[10]

In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artiﬁci al Intelligence (2015), https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI15/paper/view/9398

Li, H., Mukherjee, A., Si, J., Liu, B.: Extracting verb ex pressions implying negative opinions. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artiﬁci al Intelligence (2015), https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI15/paper/view/9398

2015
[11]

In: Marie- Francine Moens, S.S

Lin, C.Y.: Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of s ummaries. In: Marie- Francine Moens, S.S. (ed.) Text Summarization Branches Out : Proceedings of the ACL-04 Workshop. pp. 74–81. Association for Computatio nal Linguistics, Barcelona, Spain (July 2004)

2004
[12]

I n: Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Asso ciation for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies

Misra, A., Anand, P., Fox Tree, J.E., Walker, M.: Using su mmarization to discover argument facets in online idealogical dialog. I n: Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Asso ciation for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies...

2015
[13]

In: Proceedings of th e 21th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial 2017)

Misra, A., Oraby, S., Tandon, S., TS, S., Anand, P., Walke r, M.A.: Summarizing dialogic arguments from social media. In: Proceedings of th e 21th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial 2017). pp . 126–136 (August 2017)

2017
[14]

ACM Trans

Mohammad, S.M., Sobhani, P., Kiritchenko, S.: Stance an d sentiment in tweets. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 17(3), 26:1–26:23 (Jun 2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3003433, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3003433

2017 doi
[15]

In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argu mentation Mining

Park, J., Cardie, C.: Identifying appropriate support f or propositions in online user comments. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argu mentation Mining. pp. 29–38. Association for Computational Linguistics, Bal timore, Maryland (June 2014), http://www.aclweb.org/anthol...

2014
[16]

In: Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Me thods in Natural Language Processing

Paul, M., Zhai, C., Girju, R.: Summarizing contrastive v iewpoints in opinionated text. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Me thods in Natural Language Processing. pp. 66–76. Association for Computati onal Linguistics, Cam- bridge, MA (October 2010), http://ww...

2010
[17]

In: Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the No rth American Chap- ter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Huma n Language Technolo- gies

Qiu, M., Jiang, J.: A latent variable model for viewpoint discovery from threaded forum posts. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the No rth American Chap- ter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Huma n Language Technolo- gies. pp. 1031–1040. Association f...

2013
[18]

In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference o n Empiri- cal Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)

Stab, C., Gurevych, I.: Identifying argumentative disc ourse structures in persuasive essays. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference o n Empiri- cal Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). pp. 46– 56. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics, Doha, Qatar (Oct ober 2...

2014
[19]

In: Proceedings of the 16th Annu al Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue

Swanson, R., Ecker, B., Walker, M.: Argument mining: Ext racting argu- ments from online dialogue. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annu al Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue. pp. 21 7–226. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics, Prague, Czech Repu...

2015
[20]

Thonet, T., Cabanac, G., Boughanem, M., Pinel-Sauvagna t, K.: VODUM: A Topic Model Unifying Viewpoint, Topic and Opinion Discovery, pp. 533–545. Springer International Publishing (2016)

2016
[21]

In: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Lan guage Analysis for Social Media (LASM)

Trabelsi, A., Zaiane, O.R.: Finding arguing expression s of divergent viewpoints in online debates. In: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Lan guage Analysis for Social Media (LASM). pp. 35–43. Association for Computa tional Linguistics, Gothenburg, Sweden (April 2014), http:/...

2014
[22]

In: M´ etais, E., Roche, M., Teisseire, M

Trabelsi, A., Za ¨ ıane, O.R.: A joint topic viewpoint mod el for contention analysis. In: M´ etais, E., Roche, M., Teisseire, M. (eds.) Natural Lan guage Processing and Information Systems. pp. 114–125. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2014)

2014
[23]

In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Con- ference on Data Mining

Trabelsi, A., Zaiane, O.R.: Mining contentious documen ts using an unsupervised topic model based approach. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Con- ference on Data Mining. pp. 550–559 (December 2014)

2014
[24]

Data & Knowledge Engineering 100, 226 – 239 (2015)

Trabelsi, A., Za ¨ ıane, O.R.: Extraction and clustering of arguing expres- sions in contentious text. Data & Knowledge Engineering 100, 226 – 239 (2015). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j .datak.2015.05.004, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169023X15000324

2015 doi
[25]

Knowledge and Information Systems 48(3), 537– 560 (Sep 2016)

Trabelsi, A., Za ¨ ıane, O.R.: Mining contentious docu- ments. Knowledge and Information Systems 48(3), 537– 560 (Sep 2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-015-088 8-6, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-015-0888-6

2016 doi
[26]

In: Procee dings of the AAAI Inter- national Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM)

Trabelsi, A., Za ¨ ıane, O.R.: Unsupervised model for top ic viewpoint discovery in online debates leveraging author interactions. In: Procee dings of the AAAI Inter- national Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM). pp. 425 –433. Association for the Advancement of Artiﬁcia...

2018
[27]

In: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Langu age Processing

Vilares, D., He, Y.: Detecting perspectives in politica l debates. In: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Langu age Processing. pp. 1573–1582. Association for Computational Linguistics , Copenhagen, Denmark (September 2017), https://www.aclweb.o...

2017
[58]

Association for Computational Linguistics, Baltimore , Maryland (June 2014), http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W14-2107

2014
[762]

Association for Computational Linguistics, Doha, Qat ar (October 2014), http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D14-1083 Contrastive Reasons Detection and Clustering 17

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

In: LREC (2016)

Abbott, R., Ecker, B., Anand, P., Walker, M.A.: Internet a rgument corpus 2.0: An sql schema for dialogic social media and the corpora to go w ith it. In: LREC (2016)

work page 2016

[2] [2]

Journal of Machine Learning Research 3, 993–1022 (2003)

Blei, D.M., Ng, A.Y., Jordan, M.I.: Latent dirichlet allo cation. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3, 993–1022 (2003)

work page 2003

[3] [3]

In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argument ation Mining

Boltuˇ zi´ c, F.,ˇSnajder, J.: Back up your stance: Recognizing arguments in o nline dis- cussions. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argument ation Mining. pp. 49–

work page

[4] [4]

In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining

Boltuˇ zi´ c, F.,ˇSnajder, J.: Identifying prominent arguments in online deb ates using semantic textual similarity. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining. pp. 110–115. Association for Computational Lingui stics, Denver, CO (June 2015), http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W15-0514

work page 2015

[5] [5]

Proceedings of GSCL pp

Bouma, G.: Normalized (pointwise) mutual information in collocation extraction. Proceedings of GSCL pp. 31–40 (2009)

work page 2009

[6] [6]

El-Kishky, A., Song, Y., Wang, C., Voss, C.R., Han, J.: Sca l- able topical phrase mining from text corpora. Proc. VLDB End ow. 8(3), 305–316 (Nov 2014). https://doi.org/10.14778/27355 08.2735519, http://dx.doi.org/10.14778/2735508.2735519

work page arXiv 2014

[7] [7]

Erkan, G., Radev, D.R.: Lexrank: Graph-based lexical cen trality as salience in text summarization. J. Artif. Intell. Res.(JAIR) 22(1), 457–479 (2004)

work page 2004

[8] [8]

Computational Linguistics 43(1), 125–179 (2017)

Habernal, I., Gurevych, I.: Argumentation mining in user-generated web discourse. Computational Linguistics 43(1), 125–179 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI a 00276, https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00276

doi:10.1162/coli 2017