User-generated reviews on the Web contain sentiments about detailed aspects of products and services. However, most of the reviews are plain text and thus require much effort to obtain information about relevant details. In this paper, we tackle the problem of automatically discovering what aspects are evaluated in reviews and how sentiments for different aspects are expressed. We first propose Sentence-LDA (SLDA), a probabilistic generative model that assumes all words in a single sentence are generated from one aspect. We then extend SLDA to Aspect and Sentiment Unification Model (ASUM), which incorporates aspect and sentiment together to model sentiments toward different aspects. ASUM discovers pairs of {aspect, sentiment} which we call senti-aspects. We applied SLDA and ASUM to reviews of electronic devices and restaurants. The results show that the aspects discovered by SLDA match evaluative details of the reviews, and the senti-aspects found by ASUM capture important aspects that are closely coupled with a sentiment. The results of sentiment classification show that ASUM outperforms other generative models and comes close to supervised classification methods. One important advantage of ASUM is that it does not require any sentiment labels of the reviews, which are often expensive to obtain.

Metaphor is a common linguistic tool in communication, making its detection in discourse a crucial task for natural language understanding. One popular approach to this challenge is to capture semantic incohesion between a metaphor and the dominant topic of the surrounding text. While these methods are effective, they tend to overclassify target words as metaphorical when they deviate in meaning from its context. We present a new approach that (1) distinguishes literal and non-literal use of target words by examining sentence-level topic transitions and (2) captures the motivation of speakers to express emotions and abstract concepts metaphorically. Experiments on an online breast cancer discussion forum dataset demonstrate a significant improvement in metaphor detection over the state-of-theart. These experimental results also reveal a tendency toward metaphor usage in personal topics and certain emotional contexts.

Understanding contextual information is key to detecting metaphors in discourse. Most current work aims at detecting metaphors given a single sentence, thus focusing mostly on local contextual cues within a short text. In this paper, we present a novel approach that explicitly leverages global context of a discourse to detect metaphors. In addition, we show that syntactic information such as dependency structures can help better describe local contextual information, thus improving detection results when combined. We apply our methods on a newly annotated online discussion forum, and show that our approach outperforms the state-of-the-art baselines in previous literature.

Finding attackable sentences in an argument is the first step toward successful refutation in argumentation. We present a first large-scale analysis of sentence attackability in online arguments. We analyze driving reasons for attacks in argumentation and identify relevant characteristics of sentences. We demonstrate that a sentence's attackability is associated with many of these characteristics regarding the sentence's content, proposition types, and tone, and that an external knowledge source can provide useful information about attackability. Building on these findings, we demonstrate that machine learning models can automatically detect attackable sentences in arguments, significantly better than several baselines and comparably well to laypeople. 1

We present a neural architecture for modeling argumentative dialogue that explicitly models the interplay between an Opinion Holder's (OH's) reasoning and a challenger's argument, with the goal of predicting if the argument successfully changes the OH's view. The model has two components: (1) vulnerable region detection, an attention model that identifies parts of the OH's reasoning that are amenable to change, and (2) interaction encoding, which identifies the relationship between the content of the OH's reasoning and that of the challenger's argument. Based on evaluation on discussions from the Change My View forum on Reddit, the two components work together to predict an OH's change in view, outperforming several baselines. A posthoc analysis suggests that sentences picked out by the attention model are addressed more frequently by successful arguments than by unsuccessful ones. 1

No abstract

We present a model to tackle a fundamental but understudied problem in computational argumentation: proposition extraction. Propositions are the basic units of an argument and the primary building blocks of most argument mining systems. However, they are usually substituted by argumentative discourse units obtained via surface-level text segmentation, which may yield text segments that lack semantic information necessary for subsequent argument mining processes. In contrast, our cascade model aims to extract complete propositions by handling anaphora resolution, text segmentation, reported speech, questions, imperatives, missing subjects, and revision. We formulate each task as a computational problem and test various models using a corpus of the 2016 U.S. presidential debates. We show promising performance for some tasks and discuss main challenges in proposition extraction.

No abstract