File size: 85,858 Bytes
6fa4bc9 |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 |
{
"paper_id": "2021",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T02:09:57.424320Z"
},
"title": "Key Point Analysis via Contrastive Learning and Extractive Argument Summarization",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Milad",
"middle": [],
"last": "Alshomary",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Paderborn University",
"location": {
"settlement": "Germany"
}
},
"email": "milad.alshomary@upb.de"
},
{
"first": "Timon",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gurke",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Paderborn University",
"location": {
"settlement": "Germany"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Shahbaz",
"middle": [],
"last": "Syed",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Philipp",
"middle": [],
"last": "Heinisch",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Maximilian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Splieth\u00f6ver",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Paderborn University",
"location": {
"settlement": "Germany"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Philipp",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cimiano",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Martin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Potthast",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Henning",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wachsmuth",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Paderborn University",
"location": {
"settlement": "Germany"
}
},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "Key point analysis is the task of extracting a set of concise and high-level statements from a given collection of arguments, representing the gist of these arguments. This paper presents our proposed approach to the Key Point Analysis shared task, collocated with the 8th Workshop on Argument Mining. The approach integrates two complementary components. One component employs contrastive learning via a siamese neural network for matching arguments to key points; the other is a graph-based extractive summarization model for generating key points. In both automatic and manual evaluation, our approach was ranked best among all submissions to the shared task.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "2021",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "Key point analysis is the task of extracting a set of concise and high-level statements from a given collection of arguments, representing the gist of these arguments. This paper presents our proposed approach to the Key Point Analysis shared task, collocated with the 8th Workshop on Argument Mining. The approach integrates two complementary components. One component employs contrastive learning via a siamese neural network for matching arguments to key points; the other is a graph-based extractive summarization model for generating key points. In both automatic and manual evaluation, our approach was ranked best among all submissions to the shared task.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Informed decision-making on a controversial issue usually requires considering several pro and con arguments. To answer the question \"Is organic food healthier?\", for example, people may query a search engine that retrieves arguments from diverse sources such as news editorials, debate portals, and social media discussions, which can then be compared and weighed. However, given the constant stream of digital information, this process may be time-intensive and overwhelming. Search engines and similar support systems may therefore benefit from employing argument summarization, that is, the generated summaries may aid the decisionmaking by helping users quickly choose relevant arguments with a specific stance towards the topic.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Argument summarization has been tackled both for single documents and multiple documents (Bhatia et al., 2014; Egan et al., 2016) . A specific multi-document scenario introduced by Bar-Haim et al. (2020a) is key point analysis where the goal is to map a collection of arguments to a set of salient key points (say, high-level arguments) to provide a quantitative summary of these arguments.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 110,
"text": "(Bhatia et al., 2014;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 129,
"text": "Egan et al., 2016)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 204,
"text": "Bar-Haim et al. (2020a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The Key Point Analysis (KPA) shared task by Friedman et al. (2021) 1 invited systems for two complementary subtasks: matching arguments to key points and generating key points from a given set of arguments (Section 3). As part of this shared task, we present an approach with two complementary components, one for each subtask. For key point matching, we propose a model that learns a semantic embedding space where instances that match are closer to each other while non-matching instances are further away from each other. We learn to embed instances by utilizing a contrastive loss function in a siamese neural network (Bromley et al., 1994) . For the key point generation, we present a graph-based extractive summarization approach similar to the work of Alshomary et al. (2020a) . It utilizes a PageRank variant to rank sentences in the input arguments by quality and predicts the top-ranked sentences to be key points. In an additional experiment, we also investigated an approach that performs aspect identification on arguments, followed by aspect clustering to ensure diversity. Finally, arguments with the best coverage of these diverse aspects are extracted as key points.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 66,
"text": "Friedman et al. (2021)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 622,
"end": 644,
"text": "(Bromley et al., 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 759,
"end": 783,
"text": "Alshomary et al. (2020a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Our approaches yielded the top performance among all submissions to the shared task in both quantitative and qualitative evaluation conducted by the organizers of the shared task (Section 5). 2 .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In summarization, arguments are relatively understudied compared to other document types such as news articles or scientific literature, but a few approaches have come up in the last years.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "In an extractive manner, argument mining has been employed to identify the main claim as the summary of an argument (Petasis and Karkaletsis, 2016; Daxenberger et al., 2017) . Wang and Ling (2016) used a sequence-to-sequence model for the abstractive summarization of arguments from online debate portals. A complementary task of generating conclusions as informative argument summaries was introduced by Syed et al. (2021) . Similar to Alshomary et al. (2020b) who inferred a conclusion's target with a triplet neural network, we rely on contrastive learning here, using a siamese network though. Also, we build upon ideas of Alshomary et al. (2020a) who proposed a graph-based model using PageRank (Page et al., 1999) that extracts the argument's conclusion and the main supporting reason as an extractive summary. All these works represent the single-document summarization paradigm where only one argument is summarized at a time, whereas the given shared task is a multi-document summarization setting.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 116,
"end": 147,
"text": "(Petasis and Karkaletsis, 2016;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 173,
"text": "Daxenberger et al., 2017)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 196,
"text": "Wang and Ling (2016)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 405,
"end": 423,
"text": "Syed et al. (2021)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 437,
"end": 461,
"text": "Alshomary et al. (2020b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 700,
"end": 719,
"text": "(Page et al., 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "The first approaches to multi-document argument summarization aimed to identify the main points of online discussions. Among these, Egan et al. (2016) grouped verb frames into pattern clusters that serve as input to a structured summarization pipeline, whereas Misra et al. (2016) proposed a more condensed approach by directly extracting argumentative sentences, summarized by similarity clustering. Bar-Haim et al. (2020a) continued this line of research by introducing the notion of key points and contributing the ArgsKP corpus, a collection of arguments mapped to manually-created key points. These key points are concise and selfcontained sentences that capture the gist of the arguments. Later, Bar-Haim et al. (2020b) proposed a quantitative argument summarization framework that automatically extracts key points from a set of arguments. Building upon this research, our approach aims to increase the quality of such generated key points, including a strong relation identifier between arguments and key points.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 261,
"end": 280,
"text": "Misra et al. (2016)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 401,
"end": 424,
"text": "Bar-Haim et al. (2020a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 702,
"end": 725,
"text": "Bar-Haim et al. (2020b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "In the context of computational argumentation, Bar-Haim et al. (2020a) introduced the notion of a key point as a high-level argument that resembles a natural language summary of a collection of more descriptive arguments. Specifically, the authors defined a good key point as being \"general enough to match a significant portion of the arguments, yet informative enough to make a useful summary.\" In this context, the KPA shared task consists of two subtasks as described below:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 70,
"text": "Bar-Haim et al. (2020a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Task Description",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "1. Key point matching. Given a set of arguments on a certain topic that are grouped by their stance and a set of key points, assign each argument to a key point.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Task Description",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "2. Key point generation and matching. Given a set of arguments on a certain topic that are grouped by their stance, first generate five to ten key points summarizing the arguments. Then, match each argument in the set to the generated key points (as in the previous track).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Task Description",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Data We start from the dataset provided by the organizers as described in Friedman et al. (2021) . The dataset contains 28 controversial topics, with 6515 arguments and a total of 243 key points. For each argument, its stance towards the topic as well as a quality score are given. Each topic is represented by at least three key points, with at least one key point per stance and at least three arguments matched to a key point. From the given arguments, 4.7% are unmatched, 67.5% belong to a single key point, and 5.0% belong to multiple key points. The remaining 22.8% of the arguments have ambiguous labels, meaning that the annotators could not agree on a correct matching to the key points. The final dataset contains 24,093 argument-key point pairs, of which 20.7% are labeled as matching. To develop our approach, we use the split as provided by the organizers with 24 topics for training, four topics for validation, and three topics for testing.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 96,
"text": "Friedman et al. (2021)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Task Description",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Our approach consists of two components, each corresponding to one subtask of the KPA shared task. The first subtask of matching arguments to key points is modeled as a contrastive learning task using a siamese neural network. The second subtask requires generating key points for a collection of arguments and then matching them to the arguments. We investigated two models for this subtask: One is a graph-based extractive summarization model utilizing PageRank (Page et al., 1999) to extract sentences representing the key points; the other identifies aspects from the arguments and selects the most representative sentences that maximize the coverage of these aspects as the key points.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 464,
"end": 483,
"text": "(Page et al., 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Approach",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Conceptually, we consider pairs of arguments and key points that are close to each other in a semantic embedding space as possible candidates for matching. Furthermore, we seek to transform this space key point kp",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Key Point Matching",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "other kp' a 1 a 2 a 3 key point f(kp) other f(kp') f(a 1 ) f(a 2 ) f(a 3 )",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Key Point Matching",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "Learned embedding space Figure 1 : We learn to transform an embedding space into a new space in which matching pairs of key point and argument (e.g., kp and a 1 ) are closer to each other, and the distance between non-matching pairs (e.g., kp \u2032 and a 1 ) is larger. For simplicity, kp and kp \u2032 each represent a concatenation of key point and topic.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 32,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Default embedding space",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "into a new embedding space where matching pairs are closer and the non-matching ones are more distant from each other (Figure 1 ). To do so, we utilize a siamese neural network with a contrastive loss function. Specifically, in the training phase, the input is a topic along with a key point, an argument, and a label (matching or not). First, we use a pretrained language model to encode the tokens of the argument as well as those of the concatenation of the topic and the key point. Then, we pass their embeddings through a siamese neural network, which is a mean-pooling layer that aggregates the token embeddings of each input, resulting in two sentencelevel embeddings. We compute the contrastive loss using these embeddings as follows:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 118,
"end": 127,
"text": "(Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Default embedding space",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "L = \u2212y \u2022 log(\u0177) + (1 \u2212 y) \u2022 log(1 \u2212\u0177)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Default embedding space",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "where\u0177 is the cosine similarity of the embeddings, and y reflects whether a pair matches (1) or not (0).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Default embedding space",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Our primary model for key point generation is a graph-based extractive summarization model. Additionally, we also investigate clustering the aspects of the given collection of arguments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Key Point Generation",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "Graph-based Summarization Following the work of Alshomary et al. (2020a), we first construct an undirected graph with the arguments' sentences as nodes. As a filtering step, we compute argument quality scores for each sentence as Toledo et al. (2019) and exclude low-quality arguments from the graph. Next, we employ our key point matching model (Section 4.1) to compute the edge weight between two nodes as the pairwise matching score of the corresponding sentences. Only nodes with a score above a defined threshold are connected via an edge. An example graph is sketched in Figure 2 . Finally, we use a variant of PageRank (Page et al., 1999) to compute an importance score P (s i ) for each sentence s i as follows:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 230,
"end": 250,
"text": "Toledo et al. (2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 626,
"end": 645,
"text": "(Page et al., 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 577,
"end": 585,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Key Point Generation",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "P (si) = (1 \u2212 d) \u2022 s j \u0338 =s i match(si, sj) s k \u0338 =s j match(sj, s k ) P (sj) + d \u2022 qual(si) s k qual(s k )",
"eq_num": "(1)"
}
],
"section": "Key Point Generation",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "where d is a damping factor that can be configured to bias the algorithm towards the argument quality score qual or the matching score match. To ensure diversity, we iterate through the ranked list of sentences (in descending order), adding a sentence to the final set of key points if its maximum matching score with the already selected candidates is below a certain threshold.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Key Point Generation",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "Aspect Clustering Extracting key points is conceptually similar to identifying aspects (Bar-Haim et al., 2020a) , which inspired our clustering approach that selects representative sentences from multiple aspect clusters as the final key points. We employ the tagger of Schiller et al. (2021) to extract the arguments' aspects (on average, 2.1 aspects per argument). To tackle the lack of diversity, we follow Heinisch and Cimiano (2021) and create k diverse aspect clusters by projecting the extracted aspect phrases to an embedding space. Next, we model the candidate selection of argument sentences as the set cover problem. Specifically, the",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 111,
"text": "(Bar-Haim et al., 2020a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 292,
"text": "Schiller et al. (2021)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 410,
"end": 437,
"text": "Heinisch and Cimiano (2021)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Key Point Generation",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "Approach R-1 R-2 R-L",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Key Point Generation",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "Graph-based Summarization 19.8 3.5 18.0 Aspect Clustering 18.9 4.7 17.1 Table 1 : ROUGE scores on the test set for our two approaches to key point generation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 79,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Key Point Generation",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "final set of key points summarizing the arguments for a given topic and stance maximizes the coverage of the set of arguments' aspects. To this end, we apply greedy approximation for selecting our candidates, where an argument sentence is chosen if it covers the maximum number of unique aspect clusters while having the smallest overlap with the clusters covered by the already selected candidates. Also, to avoid redundant key points, we compute its semantic similarity to the already selected candidates in each candidate selection step, and we add it to the final set if its score is below a certain threshold.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Key Point Generation",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "In the following, we present implementation details of our two components, and we report on their quantitative and qualitative results.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments and Evaluation",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "We employed RoBERTa-large (Liu and Lapata, 2019) for encoding the tokens of the two inputs of key point matching to the siamese neural network, which acts as a mean-pooling layer and projects the encoder outputs (matrix of token embeddings) into a sentence embedding of size 768. We used Sentence-BERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019) to train our model for 10 epochs, with batch size 32, and maximum input length of 70, leaving all other parameters to their defaults. For automatic evaluation, we computed both strict and relaxed mean Average Precision (mAP) following Friedman et al. (2021) . In cases where there is no majority label for matching, the relaxed mAP considers them to be a match while the strict mAP considers them as not matching. In the development phase, we trained our model on the training split and evaluated on the validation split provided by the organizers. The strict and relaxed mAP on the validation set were 0.84 and 0.96 respectively. For the final submission, we did a five-fold cross validation on the combined data (training and validation splits) creating an ensemble for the matching (as per the mean score).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 48,
"text": "(Liu and Lapata, 2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 302,
"end": 330,
"text": "(Reimers and Gurevych, 2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 566,
"end": 588,
"text": "Friedman et al. (2021)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Key Point Matching",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "For the graph-based summarization model, we employed Spacy (Honnibal et al., 2020) to split the arguments into sentences. Similar to (Bar-Haim et al., 2020b) , only sentences with a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 20 tokens, and not starting with a pronoun, were used for building the graph. Argument quality scores for each sentence were obtained from Project Debater's API (Toledo et al., 2019) 3 . We selected the thresholds for the parameters d, qual and match in Equation 1 as 0.2, 0.8 and 0.4 respectively, optimizing for ROUGE (Lin, 2004) . In particular, we computed ROUGE-L between the ground-truth key points and the top 10 ranked sentences as our predictions, averaged over all the topic and stance combinations in the training split. We excluded sentences with a matching score higher than 0.8 with the selected candidates to minimize redundancy.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 82,
"text": "(Honnibal et al., 2020)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 157,
"text": "(Bar-Haim et al., 2020b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 373,
"end": 394,
"text": "(Toledo et al., 2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 532,
"end": 543,
"text": "(Lin, 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Key Point Generation",
"sec_num": "5.2"
},
{
"text": "For aspect clustering, we created 15 clusters per topic and stance combination. After greedy approximation of the candidate sentences, we removed redundant ones using a threshold of 0.65 for the normalized BERTScore (Zhang et al., 2020) with the previously selected candidates.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 216,
"end": 236,
"text": "(Zhang et al., 2020)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Key Point Generation",
"sec_num": "5.2"
},
{
"text": "Comparison of both approaches To select our primary approach for key point generation, we first performed an automatic evaluation of the aforementioned models on the test set using ROUGE (Table 1) . Additionally, we performed a manual evaluation via pairwise comparison of the extracted key points for both models for a given topic and stance.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 187,
"end": 196,
"text": "(Table 1)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Key Point Generation",
"sec_num": "5.2"
},
{
"text": "Examples of key points from both the models are shown in Table 2 . The key points from graph-based summarization model are relatively longer. This also improves their informativeness, matching findings of Syed et al. (2021) . For the aspect clustering, we observe that the key points are more focused on specific aspects such as \"disease\" (for Pro) and \"effectiveness\" (for Con). In a real-world application, this may provide the flexibility to choose key points by aspects of interest to the end-user, especially with further improvement of aspect tagger by avoiding non-essential extracted phrases as \"mandatory\". Hence, given the task of generating a quantitative summary of a collection of arguments, we believe that the graph-based summary provides",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 205,
"end": 223,
"text": "Syed et al. (2021)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 64,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Key Point Generation",
"sec_num": "5.2"
},
{
"text": "Stance Graph-based Summarization Aspect Clustering",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Topic",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Routine child vaccinations should be mandatory",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Topic",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(1) Child vaccinations should be mandatory to provide decent health care to all. (2) Vaccines help children grow up healthy and avoid dangerous diseases.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Pro",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(3) Child vaccinations should be mandatory so our children will be safe and protected.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Pro",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(1) Child vaccination is needed for children, they get sick too. (2) Routine child vaccinations should be mandatory to prevent the disease. (3) Yes as they protect children from life threatening and highly infectious diseases.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Pro",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Routine child vaccinations should be mandatory",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Pro",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(1) Vaccination should exclude children to avoid the side effects that can appear on them.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Con",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(2) Parents should have the freedom to decide what they consider best for their children.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Con",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(3) The child population has a low degree of vulnerability, so vaccination is not urgent yet.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Con",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(1) Child vaccination shouldn't be mandatory because the virus isn't effective in children.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Con",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(2) Child vaccinations should not be mandatory because vaccines are expensive. (3) It has not been 100% proven if the vaccine is effective. Table 3 : Final evaluation results of both tracks, comparing our approach (mspl) to the top two submitted approaches, along with Bar-Haim et al. (2020b) approach (bar_h). The generated key points were ranked in terms of how relevant (Rel.) and representative (Rep.) of the input arguments, as well as their polarity (Pol.) a more comprehensive overview and chose this as our preferred approach for key point generation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 140,
"end": 147,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Con",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In key point matching, our approach obtained a strict mAP of 0.789 and a relaxed mAP of 0.927 on the test set, the best result among all participating approaches. For the second track, in addition to evaluating the key point matching task, the shared task organizers manually evaluated the generated key points through a crowdsourcing study in which submitted approaches were ranked according to the quality of their generated key points. Table 3 presents the evaluation results of the top three submitted approaches, along with the reference approach of Bar-Haim et al. (2020b) . Among the submitted approaches, our approach was ranked the best in both the key point generation task as well as the key point matching task. For complete details on the evaluation, we refer to the task organizers' report (Friedman et al., 2021) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 556,
"end": 579,
"text": "Bar-Haim et al. (2020b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 805,
"end": 828,
"text": "(Friedman et al., 2021)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 439,
"end": 447,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Shared Task's Evaluation Results",
"sec_num": "5.3"
},
{
"text": "This paper has presented a framework to tackle the key point analysis of arguments. For matching arguments to key points, we achieved the best performance in the KPA shared task via contrastive learning. For key point generation, we developed a graph-based extractive summarization model that output informative key points of high quality for a collection of arguments. We see abstractive key point generation as part of our future work.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "https://2021.argmining.org/shared_task_ibm, last accessed: 2021-08-08 2 The code is available under https://github.com/webis-de/ ArgMining-21",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Available under: https://early-access-program.debater.res. ibm.com/",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Extractive snippet generation for arguments",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Milad",
"middle": [],
"last": "Alshomary",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Nick",
"middle": [],
"last": "D\u00fcsterhus",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Henning",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wachsmuth",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2020,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2020, Virtual Event",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1969--1972",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.1145/3397271.3401186"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Milad Alshomary, Nick D\u00fcsterhus, and Henning Wachsmuth. 2020a. Extractive snippet generation for arguments. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2020, Virtual Event, China, July 25-30, 2020, pages 1969-1972. ACM.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Target inference in argument conclusion generation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Milad",
"middle": [],
"last": "Alshomary",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Shahbaz",
"middle": [],
"last": "Syed",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Martin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Potthast",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Henning",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wachsmuth",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2020,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "2020",
"issue": "",
"pages": "4334--4345",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.399"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Milad Alshomary, Shahbaz Syed, Martin Potthast, and Henning Wachsmuth. 2020b. Target inference in ar- gument conclusion generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 4334-4345. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "From arguments to key points: Towards automatic argument summarization",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Roy",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bar-Haim",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Lilach",
"middle": [],
"last": "Eden",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Roni",
"middle": [],
"last": "Friedman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yoav",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kantor",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lahav",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Noam",
"middle": [],
"last": "Slonim",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2020,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "4029--4039",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Roy Bar-Haim, Lilach Eden, Roni Friedman, Yoav Kan- tor, Dan Lahav, and Noam Slonim. 2020a. From arguments to key points: Towards automatic argu- ment summarization. In Proceedings of the 58th An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4029-4039. Association for Com- putational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Quantitative argument summarization and beyond: Crossdomain key point analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Roy",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bar-Haim",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yoav",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kantor",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Lilach",
"middle": [],
"last": "Eden",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Roni",
"middle": [],
"last": "Friedman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lahav",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Noam",
"middle": [],
"last": "Slonim",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2020,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
"volume": "2020",
"issue": "",
"pages": "39--49",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.3"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Roy Bar-Haim, Yoav Kantor, Lilach Eden, Roni Fried- man, Dan Lahav, and Noam Slonim. 2020b. Quanti- tative argument summarization and beyond: Cross- domain key point analysis. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, Novem- ber 16-20, 2020, pages 39-49. Association for Com- putational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Summarizing online forum discussions -can dialog acts of individual messages help?",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Sumit",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bhatia",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Prakhar",
"middle": [],
"last": "Biyani",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Prasenjit",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mitra",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2014,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "2127--2131",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.3115/v1/d14-1226"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sumit Bhatia, Prakhar Biyani, and Prasenjit Mitra. 2014. Summarizing online forum discussions -can dialog acts of individual messages help? In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat- ural Language Processing, EMNLP 2014, October 25-29, 2014, Doha, Qatar, A meeting of SIGDAT, a Special Interest Group of the ACL, pages 2127-2131. ACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Signature verification using a \"siamese\" time delay neural network",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jane",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bromley",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Isabelle",
"middle": [],
"last": "Guyon",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yann",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lecun",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Eduard",
"middle": [],
"last": "S\u00e4ckinger",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Roopak",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shah",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Advances in neural information processing systems",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "737--744",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jane Bromley, Isabelle Guyon, Yann LeCun, Eduard S\u00e4ckinger, and Roopak Shah. 1994. Signature verifi- cation using a \"siamese\" time delay neural network. In Advances in neural information processing sys- tems, pages 737-744.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "What is the essence of a claim? cross-domain claim identification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Johannes",
"middle": [],
"last": "Daxenberger",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Steffen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Eger",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ivan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Habernal",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Christian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stab",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Iryna",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gurevych",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2017,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "2055--2066",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/D17-1218"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Johannes Daxenberger, Steffen Eger, Ivan Habernal, Christian Stab, and Iryna Gurevych. 2017. What is the essence of a claim? cross-domain claim identi- fication. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2055-2066, Copenhagen, Denmark. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Summarising the points made in online political debates",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Charlie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Egan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Advaith",
"middle": [],
"last": "Siddharthan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Adam",
"middle": [
"Z"
],
"last": "Wyner",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2016,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Argument Mining, hosted by the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ArgMining@ACL 2016",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/w16-2816"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Charlie Egan, Advaith Siddharthan, and Adam Z. Wyner. 2016. Summarising the points made in online politi- cal debates. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Argument Mining, hosted by the 54th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ArgMining@ACL 2016, August 12, Berlin, Germany. The Association for Computer Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Overview of KPA-2021 shared task: Key point based quantitative summarization",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Roni",
"middle": [],
"last": "Friedman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Lena",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dankin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yoav",
"middle": [],
"last": "Katz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yufang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hou",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Noam",
"middle": [],
"last": "Slonim",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2021,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Roni Friedman, Lena Dankin, Yoav Katz, Yufang Hou, and Noam Slonim. 2021. Overview of KPA-2021 shared task: Key point based quantitative summariza- tion.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "A multitask approach to argument frame classification at variable granularity levels. it -Information Technology",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Philipp",
"middle": [],
"last": "Heinisch",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Philipp",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cimiano",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2021,
"venue": "",
"volume": "63",
"issue": "",
"pages": "59--72",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.1515/itit-2020-0054"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Philipp Heinisch and Philipp Cimiano. 2021. A multi- task approach to argument frame classification at vari- able granularity levels. it -Information Technology, 63(1):59-72.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Sofie Van Landeghem, and Adriane Boyd. 2020. spaCy: Industrialstrength Natural Language Processing in Python",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Matthew",
"middle": [],
"last": "Honnibal",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ines",
"middle": [],
"last": "Montani",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.5281/zenodo.1212303"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Matthew Honnibal, Ines Montani, Sofie Van Lan- deghem, and Adriane Boyd. 2020. spaCy: Industrial- strength Natural Language Processing in Python.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Chin-Yew",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Text Summarization Branches Out",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "74--81",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for auto- matic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summariza- tion Branches Out, pages 74-81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Text summarization with pretrained encoders",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Yang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Liu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mirella",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lapata",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2019,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "3730--3740",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/D19-1387"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Yang Liu and Mirella Lapata. 2019. Text summariza- tion with pretrained encoders. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu- ral Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3730-3740, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Measuring the similarity of sentential arguments in dialogue",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Amita",
"middle": [],
"last": "Misra",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Brian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ecker",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Marilyn",
"middle": [],
"last": "Walker",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2016,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "276--287",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/W16-3636"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Amita Misra, Brian Ecker, and Marilyn Walker. 2016. Measuring the similarity of sentential arguments in dialogue. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dia- logue, pages 276-287, Los Angeles. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "The pageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Lawrence",
"middle": [],
"last": "Page",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sergey",
"middle": [],
"last": "Brin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Rajeev",
"middle": [],
"last": "Motwani",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Terry",
"middle": [],
"last": "Winograd",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Lawrence Page, Sergey Brin, Rajeev Motwani, and Terry Winograd. 1999. The pageRank citation rank- ing: Bringing order to the web. Technical report, Stanford InfoLab.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Identifying argument components through textrank",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Georgios",
"middle": [],
"last": "Petasis",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Vangelis",
"middle": [],
"last": "Karkaletsis",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2016,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Argument Mining, hosted by the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ArgMining@ACL 2016",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Georgios Petasis and Vangelis Karkaletsis. 2016. Identi- fying argument components through textrank. In Pro- ceedings of the Third Workshop on Argument Mining, hosted by the 54th Annual Meeting of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics, ArgMining@ACL 2016, August 12, Berlin, Germany.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Nils",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reimers",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Iryna",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gurevych",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2019,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Aspect-controlled neural argument generation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Benjamin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schiller",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Johannes",
"middle": [],
"last": "Daxenberger",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Iryna",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gurevych",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2021,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "380--396",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Benjamin Schiller, Johannes Daxenberger, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. Aspect-controlled neural argument generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 380-396. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "News editorials: Towards summarizing long argumentative texts",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Shahbaz",
"middle": [],
"last": "Syed",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Roxanne",
"middle": [
"El"
],
"last": "Baff",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Johannes",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kiesel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Khalid",
"middle": [
"Al"
],
"last": "Khatib",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Benno",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stein",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Martin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Potthast",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2020,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "2020",
"issue": "",
"pages": "5384--5396",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.470"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Shahbaz Syed, Roxanne El Baff, Johannes Kiesel, Khalid Al Khatib, Benno Stein, and Martin Potthast. 2020. News editorials: Towards summarizing long argumentative texts. In Proceedings of the 28th Inter- national Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 2020, Barcelona, Spain (Online), Decem- ber 8-13, 2020, pages 5384-5396. International Com- mittee on Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Generating informative conclusions for argumentative texts",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Shahbaz",
"middle": [],
"last": "Syed",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Khalid",
"middle": [
"Al"
],
"last": "Khatib",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Milad",
"middle": [],
"last": "Alshomary",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Henning",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wachsmuth",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Martin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Potthast",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2021,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Shahbaz Syed, Khalid Al Khatib, Milad Alshomary, Henning Wachsmuth, and Martin Potthast. 2021. Generating informative conclusions for argumenta- tive texts. CoRR, abs/2106.01064.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Automatic argument quality assessment-new datasets and methods",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Assaf",
"middle": [],
"last": "Toledo",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Shai",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gretz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Edo",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cohen-Karlik",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Roni",
"middle": [],
"last": "Friedman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Elad",
"middle": [],
"last": "Venezian",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lahav",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michal",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jacovi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ranit",
"middle": [],
"last": "Aharonov",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Noam",
"middle": [],
"last": "Slonim",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2019,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "5625--5635",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Assaf Toledo, Shai Gretz, Edo Cohen-Karlik, Roni Friedman, Elad Venezian, Dan Lahav, Michal Jacovi, Ranit Aharonov, and Noam Slonim. 2019. Auto- matic argument quality assessment-new datasets and methods. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natu- ral Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5625-5635.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Neural network-based abstract generation for opinions and arguments",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Lu",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Wang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ling",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2016,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "47--57",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/N16-1007"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Lu Wang and Wang Ling. 2016. Neural network-based abstract generation for opinions and arguments. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 47-57, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Tianyi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zhang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Varsha",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kishore",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Felix",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kilian",
"middle": [
"Q"
],
"last": "Weinberger",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yoav",
"middle": [],
"last": "Artzi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2020,
"venue": "International Conference on Learning Representations",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. Bertscore: Eval- uating text generation with bert. In International Conference on Learning Representations.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"text": "cause unwanted side effects Children should not be vaccinated because they can have serious side effects Does not need it as children have better immune systems Vaccination should exclude children to avoid the side effects that can appear on them Linking a measure as good as vaccination to coercive measures would cause serious harm Forcing people to have their children vaccinated goes against free will As long as vaccines are not free of side effects, it cannot make them mandatory for our children The child population has a low degree of vulnerability, so vaccination is not urgent yet I as a parent should decide Vaccination in the child population is not yet a vulnerable age so it is not a priority Parents should be allowed to choose if their child is vaccinated or not Parents should have the freedom to decide what they consider best for their children Let them decide if they want to be vaccinatedVaccination is an option, not everyone thinks they really are important and free will must be respected[...]",
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF1": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"text": "Example graph of our key point generation approach. Nodes with high saturation are considered to be key points (bold text). Nodes with dashed lines have lower argument quality. Edge thickness represents similarity between two nodes. Notice that the shown arguments do not reflect the view of the authors.",
"type_str": "figure"
},
"TABREF0": {
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td>KP Matching</td><td colspan=\"3\">KP Generation</td></tr><tr><td>Approach</td><td>mAP/Rank</td><td colspan=\"3\">Rel. Rep. Pol.</td></tr><tr><td>bar_h</td><td>0.885/1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>mspl (ours)</td><td>0.818/2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>sohanpat</td><td>0.491/3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>peratham</td><td>0.443/4</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Examples of keypoints from our proposed approaches. Only the top three key points are shown for brevity.",
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null
}
}
}
} |