Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Argument mining based on a structured database and its usage in an intelligent tutoring environment

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Knowledge and Information Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Argumentation theory is a new research area that concerns mainly with reaching a mutually acceptable conclusion using logical reasoning. Argumentation can be defined as a proof of dynamic nature and is considered as an ill-defined domain that typically lacks clear distinctions between “right” and “wrong” answers. Instead, there are often competing reasonable answers. Recently, a number of argument mapping tools have been developed to diagram, articulate, and comprehend different arguments. Despite the fact, these methods are of complementary nature, and the efforts for integrating these tools are missing. The purpose of this paper is threefold: (1) revealing a novel approach for argument representation using a structured relational argument database “RADB”, which has been designed, developed, and implemented in order to represent different argument analyses and diagrams, (2) presenting a classifier agent that utilizes the RADB repository by using different mining techniques in order to retrieve the most relevant arguments to the subject of search, and (3) proposing an agent-based educational environment (ALES) that utilizes the RABD together with the classifier agent to teach argument analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abbas S, Sawamura H (2008) Argument mining using highly structured argument repertoire. In: The first international conference on educational data mining (EDM), Montreal, Qubec, Canada, pp 202–2010

  2. Abbas S, Sawamura H (2008) A first step towards argument mining and its use in arguing agents and its. In: 12th international conference on knowledge-based and intelligent information and engineering systems (KES), Zagreb, Croatia, Springer, pp 149–157

  3. Abbas S, Sawamura H (2008) Towards argument mining using relational argument database. In: The second international workshop on Juris-informatics (JURISIN), Asahikawa Convention Bureau, Hokkaido, Japan, pp 22–31

  4. Abbas S, Sawamura H (2009) Mining impact on argument learning environment and arguing agents. In: The third international workshop on Juris-Informatics (JURISIN 2009), JSAI, Tokyo, Japan, pp 3–14

  5. Agrawal R, Srikant R (1994) Fast algorithms for mining rules. In: the 20th VLDB conference Santiago, Chile

  6. Baloian N, Motelet O, Pino A (2008) Taking advantage of metadata semantics: the case of learning-object-based lesson graphs. Knowl Inf Syst J 20: 323–348

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cao B, Badia A (2009) Exploiting maximal redundancy to optimize sql queries. Knowl Inf Syst J 20: 187–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chesnevar C, McGinnis J, Modgil S, Rahwan I (2006) Towards an argument interchange format. In: The knowledge engineering review. Cambridge University Press

  9. Chi Y, Muntz R (2001) Frequent subtree mining—an overview. Fundamenta Informaticae. pp 1001–1038

  10. Conrad J, Schilder F (2007) Opinion mining in legal blogs. In: ICAILć607 palo alto, California, USA, pp 231–236, June 4–8

  11. Godden M, Walton D (2006) Argument from expert opinion as legal evidence: critical questions and admissibility criteria of expert testimony in the American legal system. Juris R 19: 261–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gordan F, Walton D (2006) The carneades argumentation framework: using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In: 6th computational models of natural argument workshop (CMNA), European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI), Italy, pp 5–13

  13. Gordan F, Walton D (2006) The carneades argumentation framwork. In: Computational models of argument (COMMA06), IOS press, vol 144, pp 195–207

  14. Katzav J, Reed C, Rowe G (2003) Argument research corpus. In: Huget M-P (ed) Communication in multiagent systems, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2650, Springer, Berlin, pp 269–283

  15. Lin X, Zhou A, Luo H, Fan J, Bertino E (2008) A distributed approach to enabling privacy-preserving model-based classifier training. Knowl Inf Syst J. pp 157–185

  16. Lynch C, Ashley K (2009) Toward assessing law students’ argument diagrams. In: The 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 222–223

  17. Lynch C, Ashley K, Pinkwart N, Aleven V (2007) Learning by diagramming supreme court oral arguments. In: The 11th international conference of artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, pp 271–275

  18. Macagno F, Walton D (2006) Argumentative reasoning patterns. In: Proceeding of 6th CMNA (Computational models of natural argument) workshop, ECAI (European conference on aetificial intelligence), Rivadel Garda, Italy, Trento, Italy, University of Trento. pp 48–51

  19. McBurney P, Parsons S (2003) Dialogue game protocols. In: Practical applications in language corpora

  20. Moens M, Boiy E, Palau R, Reed C (2007) Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts. In: ICAIL07 Palo Alto, California USA, pp 225–230, June 4–8

  21. Nijssen S, Kok JN (2004) A quickstart in frequent structure mining can make a difference. In: Tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, USA, pp 647–652

  22. Prakken H, Vreeswijk G (2002) Logical systems for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay D, Guenther F (eds) Handbook of philosophical logic. Kluwer, NY, pp 219–318

    Google Scholar 

  23. Prakken H, Reed C, Walton D (2005) Dialogues about the burden of proof. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL), ACM Press, New York NY, USA

  24. Rahwan I, Sakeer P (2006) Representing and querying arguments on semantic web. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) Computational models of argument. IOS Press, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rahwan I, Zablith F, Reed C (2007) The foundation for a world wide argument web. In: Artificial intelligence conference (AAAI). published in the Artificial Intelligence Journal, April 04

  26. Reed C, Rowe G (2004) Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. Int J Artif Intell Tools 13: 983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Reed C, Rowe G (2005) Translating toulmin diagrams: theory neutrality in argument representation. Argumentation J 19: 267–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Reed C, Walton D, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rowe G, Reed C, Katzav J (2003) Araucaria: making up argument. In: European conference on computing and philosophy

  30. Walton D (1996) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. In: Lawrence Erlbaum, vol 13, p 236

  31. Walton D (2006) Argument from appearance: a new argumentation scheme. Logique et Analyse 195: 319–340

    Google Scholar 

  32. Walton D, Hansen H (2006) Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  33. Walton D, Rowe G, Macagno F, Reed C (2006) Araucaria as a tool for diagramming arguments in teaching and studying philosophy. Teach Philos 29: 111–124

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wang K, Zeng X, Pei J, Li J (2008) Pads: a simple yet effective pattern-aware dynamic search method for fast maximal frequent pattern mining. Knowl Inf Syst J 20: 375–391

    Google Scholar 

  35. Zaki M (2005) Efficiently mining frequent trees in a forest: algorithms and applications. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 17: 1021–1035

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Computer and Information Sciences, Ain Shams University, Abbasia, Cairo, Egypt

    Safia Abbas

  2. Institute of Natural Science and Technology, Niigata University, 8050, 2-cho, Ikarashi, Niigata, 950-2181, Japan

    Hajime Sawamura

Authors
  1. Safia Abbas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hajime Sawamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Safia Abbas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Abbas, S., Sawamura, H. Argument mining based on a structured database and its usage in an intelligent tutoring environment. Knowl Inf Syst 30, 213–246 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-010-0371-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-010-0371-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation