Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 396

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 192 of the 192 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Argument Mining: A Survey

Open access
Lawrence, John, Reed, Chris·2020·Computational Linguistics
DOI 10.1162/coli_a_00364
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Argument mining is the automatic identification and extraction of the structure of inference and reasoning expressed as arguments presented in natural language. Understanding argumentative structure makes it possible to determine not only what positions people are adopting, but also why they hold the opinions they do, providing valuable insights in domains as diverse as financial market prediction and public relations. This survey explores the techniques that establish the foundations for argument mining, provides a review of recent advances in argument mining techniques, and discusses the challenges faced in automatically extracting a deeper understanding of reasoning expressed in language in general.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/coli_a_00364

Cites

192 of 192 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 192 references

Research works printed but not linked: 82

  1. Abbott Rob, 2016, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), 4445
  2. Ailomaa Marita, 2009, Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of the NZ ACM Special Interest Group on Human-Computer Interaction (CHINZ 2009), 6
  3. 10.18653/v1/P18-1237 · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1237
  4. Anand Pranav, 2011, Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2011) at AAAI 2011, 11
  5. Aristotle, 1958, Topics
  6. Aristotle, 1991, On Rhetoric
  7. Athar Awais, 2011, HLT-SS ’11 Proceedings of the ACL 2011 Student Session, 81
  8. 10.1007/s10458-005-1166-x · doi:10.1007/s10458-005-1166-x
  9. Bex Floris, 2012, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), 390
  10. Bex Floris, 2014, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2014), 141
  11. 10.3115/v1/W15-0511 · doi:10.3115/v1/w15-0511
  12. Bosc Tom, 2016, Proceedings of the 10th edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, 1258
  13. 10.1007/978-3-642-21350-2_4 · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21350-2_4
  14. Budzynska Katarzyna, 2014, Proceedings of the 9th Edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC), 917
  15. Budzynska Katarzyna, 2017, Handbook of Formal Argumentation
  16. Bunt Harry, 2010, Seventh Conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10)
  17. Cabrio Elena, 2012, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), 454
  18. 10.3115/v1/W15-0504 · doi:10.3115/v1/w15-0504
  19. Carstens Lucas, 2014, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2014), 451
  20. Das Sanjiv, 2001, Proceedings of the Asia Pacific Finance Association Annual Conference (APFA), 35, 1
  21. Delmonte Roldolfo, 2007, Computational Linguistic Text Processing: Logical Form, Semantic Interpretation, Discourse Relations and Question Answering
  22. Dubremetz Marie, 2017, Proceedings of the 21st Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics, 37
  23. Duthie Rory, 2016, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2016), 299
  24. Egawa Ryo, 2019, Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop, 422, 10.18653/v1/P19-2059 · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-2059
  25. Fahnestock J., 1999, Rhetorical Figures in Science, 10.1093/oso/9780195117509.001.0001 · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195117509.001.0001
  26. Feng Vanessa Wei, 2014, CoRR
  27. Gawryjolek Jakub, 2009, Proceedings of the IJCAI-09 Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument
  28. Grosse Kathrin, 2012, First International Conference on Agreement Technologies (AT 2012), 408
  29. Grosz Barbara J., 1986, Computational Linguistics, 12, 175
  30. Hamblin C. L., 1970, Fallacies
  31. 10.5840/teachphil200528222 · doi:10.5840/teachphil200528222
  32. Hastings, Arthur C. 1963. A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation. Ph.D. thesis, Northwestern University.
  33. Hidey Christopher, 2018, Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
  34. Hirschberg Julia, 1993, Computational Linguistics, 19, 501
  35. Hobbs Jerry R, 1993, Burning Issues in Discourse, NATO Advanced Research Workshop, 41
  36. Hoeken Hans, 2003, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, 497
  37. Ide Nancy, 2015, International Workshop on Worldwide Language Service Infrastructure, 51
  38. Janier Mathilde, 2016, Proceedings of the 10th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC), 1014
  39. Kienpointner Manfred, 1992, Alltagslogik: struktur und funktion von argumentationsmustern
  40. 10.3115/v1/W15-0505 · doi:10.3115/v1/w15-0505
  41. Krauthoff Tobias, 2018, Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), 325
  42. Lasnik Howard, 1988, A course in GB Syntax: Lectures on Binding and Empty Categories
  43. Lawrence John, 2012, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), 513
  44. Lawrence John, 2012, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), 515
  45. Lawrence John, 2014, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2014), 465
  46. Lawrence John, 2016, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2016), 379
  47. 10.18653/v1/W17-5105 · doi:10.18653/v1/w17-5105
  48. 10.18653/v1/W19-4012 · doi:10.18653/v1/w19-4012
  49. 10.18653/v1/W17-5110 · doi:10.18653/v1/w17-5110
  50. 10.18653/v1/W19-4520 · doi:10.18653/v1/w19-4520
  51. Metzinger Thomas, 1999, PSYCHE, 5
  52. 10.18653/v1/W16-2810 · doi:10.18653/v1/w16-2810
  53. Niculae, Vlad. 2018. Learning Deep Models with Linguistically-Inspired Structure. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University.
  54. 10.1007/978-1-84800-149-7 · doi:10.1007/978-1-84800-149-7
  55. 10.3115/v1/W14-2104 · doi:10.3115/v1/w14-2104
  56. 10.1080/19462166.2011.608225 · doi:10.1080/19462166.2011.608225
  57. Pang Bo, 2002, Proceedings of the ACL 2002 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2002), 79
  58. 10.18653/v1/W18-5205 · doi:10.18653/v1/w18-5205
  59. 10.1016/j.artint.2017.02.006 · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2017.02.006
  60. 10.3115/v1/W15-0513 · doi:10.3115/v1/w15-0513
  61. 10.18653/v1/W16-2811 · doi:10.18653/v1/w16-2811
  62. Piao Scott, 2007, International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS), 366
  63. 10.1093/logcom/exi046 · doi:10.1093/logcom/exi046
  64. Reed Chris, 2006, Linguistics in the Twenty-first Century, 185
  65. 10.4135/9781412976046.n22 · doi:10.4135/9781412976046.n22
  66. Rienks Rutger, 2005, Multimodal Multiparty Meeting Processing, Workshop at the 7th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, 85
  67. Robertson David, 2004, International Workshop on Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies, 183
  68. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010 · DOI · Paper page
  69. 10.3233/AAC-170124 · doi:10.3233/aac-170124
  70. 10.3233/AAC-180035 · doi:10.3233/aac-180035
  71. Snaith Mark, 2010, From e-Participation to Online Deliberation, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Online Deliberation (OD2010), 2
  72. Stab Christian, 2014, Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 1501
  73. Stede Manfred, 2018, Argumentation Mining
  74. van Rijsbergen Cornelis Joost, 1979, Information Retrieval
  75. Villalba Maria Paz G., 2012, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), 23
  76. Visser Jacky, 2018, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), 3511
  77. 10.18653/v1/E17-1105 · doi:10.18653/v1/e17-1105
  78. Walker Marilyn A., 2012, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), 812
  79. 10.18653/v1/W18-5209 · doi:10.18653/v1/w18-5209
  80. Walton Douglas, 2011, Studies in Logic, 4, 38
  81. 10.3115/v1/W15-0510 · doi:10.3115/v1/w15-0510
  82. Adam Wyner, 2012, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), 43

Cited by

See all 396

Metadata

Authors
Lawrence, J., & Reed, C.
Venue
Computational Linguistics
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2020-01
Volume
45
Issue
4
Pages
765-818
ISSN
  • 0891-2017 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-9312
DOI
10.1162/coli_a_00364
OpenAlex
W2979666134
Cited by
396
References
192
FWCI
19.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
diamond

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Argument Mining: A Survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/coli_a_00364
The paper
Lawrence, J., & Reed, C. (2020). Argument Mining: A Survey. Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00364

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.