Temporal Argument Mining for Wri3ng Assistance Diane Litman - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Temporal Argument Mining for Wri3ng Assistance Diane Litman Professor, Computer Science Department Co-Director, Intelligent Systems Program Senior Scien3st, Learning Research & Development Center University of PiDsburgh PiDsburgh, PA USA (joint work with Fan Zhang, PhD student)

Roles for NLP Argument Mining in Education Learning Argumentation Automatic Essay Grading

Roles for NLP Argument Mining in Education Teaching Using Argumentation Socratic-Method Dialogue Systems

Roles for NLP Argument Mining in Education Processing Language Peer Feedback

Today’s Talk: Learning Argumenta3on • Temporal Argument Mining of Student Wri5ng • Algorithms and Applica3ons – Revision Extrac3on – Annota3on / Classifica3on – A Wri3ng Revision Analysis System • Open Ques3ons

Why teach argumenta3ve wri3ng? • Studies show students: – lack competence in argument wri3ng (Oostdam, et al., 1994; Oostdam & Emmelot, 1991) . – do not integrate their arguments into a high-level structure or coherent posi3on (Keith, Weiner, & Lesgold, 1991) . – Even if compose-aloud protocols show students mentally connect posi3on statement & suppor3ng details, connec<ons not evident in wri<ng (Durst, 1987) . Slide modified from Kevin D. Ashley, Ilya Goldin. 2011 6

Research Ques3on • Can temporal argument mining be used to beDer teach, assess, and understand argumenta5ve wri5ng ? • Approach: Technology design and evalua3on – System enhancements that improve student learning – Argument analy3cs for teachers – Experimental pla`orms to test research predic3ons

Temporal Argument Mining (Revision Analysis via Sentence Alignment) Dra> 1: 1) In the circle, I would place Bill Clinton because he had an affair with his aide. Dra> 2: 1) In the third circle of Hell, sinners have uncontrollable lust. 2) The carnal sinners in this level are punished by a howling, endless wind. 3) Bill Clinton would be in this level because he had an affair with his aide.

Temporal Argument Mining (Revision Analysis via Sentence Alignment) Dra> 1: 1) In the circle, I would place Bill Clinton because he had an affair with his aide. Dra> 2: 1) In the third circle of Hell, sinners have uncontrollable lust. 2) The carnal sinners in this level are punished by a howling, endless wind. 3) Bill Clinton would be in this level because he had an affair with his aide. R1: Align: null->1 Op: Add Purpose: ? R2: Align: 1->3 Op: Modify Purpose: ? ….

Temporal Argument Mining (Revision Analysis via Sentence Alignment) Dra> 1: 1) In the circle, I would place Bill Clinton because he had an affair with his aide. Dra> 2: 1) In the third circle of Hell, sinners have uncontrollable lust. 2) The carnal sinners in this level are punished by a howling, endless wind. 3) Bill Clinton would be in this level because he had an affair with his aide. R1: Align: null->1 Op: Add Purpose: ArgumentaBve R2: Align: 1->3 Op: Modify Purpose: Surface ….

Temporal Argument Mining • How are arguments changed during revision? – Analysis across versions of a text, rather than analyzing the argument structure of a single text • Subtasks – SegmentaBon : sentences • Revision extrac3on via alignment [Zhang & Litman, 2014] – Segment classificaBon : argumenta3ve purpose • Wikipedia features [Zhang & Litman, 2015] • Contextual methods [Zhang & Litman, 2016]

Revision Extrac3on [Zhang & Litman, 2014] • Treat alignment as classifica3on – Construct sentence pairs using the Cartesian product across drajs – Compute sentence similarity – Logis3c regression determines whether a pair is aligned or not • Global alignment [Needleman & Wunsch, 1970] – Sentences are more likely to be aligned if sentences before are aligned – Star3ng from the first pair, find the path to maximize likelihood • s(i, j) = max{s(i−1, j−1)+sim(i, j), s(i− 1, j) + insertcost , s(i, j − 1) + deletecost} • TF*IDF similarity yields the best results – 90 -94% within and across several corpora 12

Revision Purpose Annota3on [Zhang & Litman, 2015] • 2 binary (5 fine-grained) categories – Argumenta3ve • Claim • Warrant • Evidence • General content – Surface • Kappa = .7 – 2 high school corpora (>1000 revisions each) 13

Revision Purpose Classifica3on [Zhang & Litman, 2015] • Each sentence pair is an instance • Features based on Wikipedia revisions [Adler et al., 2011; Javanmardi et al., 2011; Bronner & Monz, 2012; Daxenberger & Gurevych, 2013 ] – Loca3on – Sentence (first/last in paragraph, exact index) – Paragraph (first/last in essay, exact index) – Textual – Keywords: “because”, “however”, “for example” …. – Named-en3ty – Sentence difference (Levenshtein distance…) – Revision opera3on (Add/Delete/Modify) – Language – Out of vocabulary words 14

Experimental Evalua3ons • Surface vs. argumenta3ve – Intrinsic (SVM, 10-fold): results significantly beDer than unigram baseline – Extrinsic : predicted versus actual labels yield same correla3ons with wri3ng improvement • Fine-grained – Intrinsic results mostly outperform unigram baselines – Feature groups have different impacts 15

Enhancing Classifica3on with Context [Zhang & Litman, 2016] • Contextual features – Original features, but for adjacent sentences – Changes in cohesion (lexical) & coherence (seman3c) • Sequence modeling • Results: Fine-grained labels – Cohesion significantly improves results for one corpus (SVM, 10-fold) – Sequence modeling yields best results for both corpora 16

Applica3on [Zhang, Hwa, Litman, & Hashemi, 2016] • ArgRewrite: A Web-based Revision Assistant for Argumenta3ve Wri3ngs – www.cs.piD.edu/˜zhangfan/argrewrite

Revision Overview Interface

Revision Detail Interface

Open Ques3on 1: Rela3on to Argument Mining? • Current Approach 1. Revision extrac<on by comparing drajs 2. (Temporal) Argument mining on each revision • Alterna3ve Approach? 1. Argument mining on each draj 2. Revision extrac<on by comparing mined arguments • Also, pipelining vs. joint modeling? • From syntax to seman3cs?

Open Ques3on 2: Rela3on to Revision Analysis? • Current Approach 1. Argumenta3ve annota3on scheme • Alterna3ve Approach? 1. Something to also cover Wikipedia 2. Predic3on of revision quality (e.g., is paper ge}ng beDer, is argument ge}ng stronger?) 3. Rela3on to peer reviews/teacher feedback between drajs, if available

Open Ques3on 3: Rela3on to Discourse Analysis? • Current Approach 1. PDTB features 2. Sentence as the ADU • Alterna3ve Approach? 1. RST features 2. “Clause” as the ADU 3. Other ways of using NLP discourse parsers

Summary • NLP-supported temporal argument mining for teaching and assessing wri3ng – Feature / Algorithm Development • Noisy and diverse data • Meaningful features • Real-3me performance – Experimental Evalua3ons • Temporal Argument Mining (high school & university corpora) • Revision Assistant (lab user study) • Even non-structural and applica3on-dependent argument mining can support useful applica3ons!

Thank You! • Ques3ons? • Further Informa3on – hDp://www.cs.piD.edu/~litman