Argumentation Mining in User-Generated Web Discourse

The goal of argumentation mining, an evolving research field in computational linguistics, is to design methods capable of analyzing people's argumentation. In this article, we go beyond the state of the art in several ways. (i) We deal with actual Web data and take up the challenges given by the variety of registers, multiple domains, and unrestricted noisy user-generated Web discourse. (ii) We bridge the gap between normative argumentation theories and argumentation phenomena encountered in actual data by adapting an argumentation model tested in an extensive annotation study. (iii) We create a new gold standard corpus (90k tokens in 340 documents) and experiment with several machine learning methods to identify argument components. We offer the data, source codes, and annotation guidelines to the community under free licenses. Our findings show that argumentation mining in user-generated Web discourse is a feasible but challenging task.Comment: Cite as: Habernal, I. & Gurevych, I. (2017). Argumentation Mining in User-Generated Web Discourse. Computational Linguistics 43(1), pp. 125-17

Legal Judgement Prediction for UK Courts

Legal Judgement Prediction (LJP) is the task of automatically predicting the outcome of a court case given only the case document. During the last five years researchers have successfully attempted this task for the supreme courts of three jurisdictions: the European Union, France, and China. Motivation includes the many real world applications including: a prediction system that can be used at the judgement drafting stage, and the identification of the most important words and phrases within a judgement. The aim of our research was to build, for the first time, an LJP model for UK court cases. This required the creation of a labelled data set of UK court judgements and the subsequent application of machine learning models. We evaluated different feature representations and different algorithms. Our best performing model achieved: 69.05% accuracy and 69.02 F1 score. We demonstrate that LJP is a promising area of further research for UK courts by achieving high model performance and the ability to easily extract useful features

The European Commission's public consultation on the review of EU copyright rules: a response by the CREATe Centre

No abstract available

Parsing Argumentation Structures in Persuasive Essays

In this article, we present a novel approach for parsing argumentation structures. We identify argument components using sequence labeling at the token level and apply a new joint model for detecting argumentation structures. The proposed model globally optimizes argument component types and argumentative relations using integer linear programming. We show that our model considerably improves the performance of base classifiers and significantly outperforms challenging heuristic baselines. Moreover, we introduce a novel corpus of persuasive essays annotated with argumentation structures. We show that our annotation scheme and annotation guidelines successfully guide human annotators to substantial agreement. This corpus and the annotation guidelines are freely available for ensuring reproducibility and to encourage future research in computational argumentation.Comment: Under review in Computational Linguistics. First submission: 26 October 2015. Revised submission: 15 July 201

Aspect-Controlled Neural Argument Generation

We rely on arguments in our daily lives to deliver our opinions and base them on evidence, making them more convincing in turn. However, finding and formulating arguments can be challenging. In this work, we train a language model for argument generation that can be controlled on a fine-grained level to generate sentence-level arguments for a given topic, stance, and aspect. We define argument aspect detection as a necessary method to allow this fine-granular control and crowdsource a dataset with 5,032 arguments annotated with aspects. Our evaluation shows that our generation model is able to generate high-quality, aspect-specific arguments. Moreover, these arguments can be used to improve the performance of stance detection models via data augmentation and to generate counter-arguments. We publish all datasets and code to fine-tune the language model

Recognizing cited facts and principles in legal judgements

In common law jurisdictions, legal professionals cite facts and legal principles from precedent cases to support their arguments before the court for their intended outcome in a current case. This practice stems from the doctrine of stare decisis, where cases that have similar facts should receive similar decisions with respect to the principles. It is essential for legal professionals to identify such facts and principles in precedent cases, though this is a highly time intensive task. In this paper, we present studies that demonstrate that human annotators can achieve reasonable agreement on which sentences in legal judgements contain cited facts and principles (respectively, κ=0.65 and κ=0.95 for inter- and intra-annotator agreement). We further demonstrate that it is feasible to automatically annotate sentences containing such legal facts and principles in a supervised machine learning framework based on linguistic features, reporting per category precision and recall figures of between 0.79 and 0.89 for classifying sentences in legal judgements as cited facts, principles or neither using a Bayesian classifier, with an overall κ of 0.72 with the human-annotated gold standard

Differentiating Legislative from Nonlegislative Rules: An Empirical and Qualitative Analysis

The elusive distinction between legislative rules and nonlegislative rules has frustrated courts, motivated voluminous scholarly debate, and ushered in a flood of litigation against administrative agencies. In the absence of U.S. Supreme Court guidance on the proper demarcating line, circuit courts have adopted various tests to ascertain a rule’s proper classification. This Note analyzes all 241 cases in which a circuit court has used one or more of the enunciated tests to differentiate legislative from nonlegislative rules. These opinions come from every one of the thirteen circuits and span the period of the early 1950s through 2018. This Note identifies six different tests that courts have employed in this effort and offers a qualitative and empirical analysis of each. The qualitative analysis explains the underlying premise of the tests, articulates their merits and shortcomings, and considers how courts have applied them to particular disputes. The empirical portion of this Note uses regression analysis to ascertain how using or rejecting one or more of the tests affects a court’s determination of whether the rule is legislative or nonlegislative. This Note classifies the different tests into two categories: public-focused tests and agency-focused tests. These two categories are defined by a principle that permeates administrative law jurisprudence: achieving a proper balance between efficient agency rulemaking and maintaining a proper check against unconstrained agency action. These two categories thus defined, this Note proposes a balanced approach that incorporates elements of both categories to identify and refine the proper test