IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,536,378
Granted Patent B2
US 12,536,378 · App. 18/102,721 · Granted Jan 27, 2026

Automated detection of reasoning in arguments

Inventors: Avishai Gretz (Ramat Gan, IL); Assaf Toledo (Ramat Gan, IL); Edo Cohen-Karlik (Tel Aviv-Jaffa, IL); Noam Slonim (Jerusalem, IL)
Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation
G06F40/30G06F40/284
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,536,378
App. No.
18/102,721
Granted
Jan 27, 2026
Kind
B2
Abstract

Automated detection of reasoning in arguments. A training set is generated by: obtaining multiple arguments, each comprising one or more sentences provided as digital text; automatically estimating a probability that each of the arguments includes reasoning, wherein the estimating comprises applying a contextual language model to each of the arguments; automatically labeling as positive examples those of the arguments which have a relatively high probability to include reasoning; and automatically labeling as negative examples those of the arguments which have a relatively low probability to include reasoning. Based on the generated training set, a machine learning classifier is automatically trained to estimate a probability that a new argument includes reasoning. The trained machine learning classifier is applied to the new argument, to estimate a probability that the new argument includes reasoning.

Claims (45)

1 . A method comprising:

training a machine learning classifier to estimate a probability that a new argument includes reasoning, wherein the training is based on positive and negative examples each being an argument that is estimated, by a machine learning-based contextual language model, to have a relatively high probability to include reasoning or a relatively low probability to include reasoning, respectively; and

applying the trained machine learning classifier to the new argument, to estimate the probability that the new argument includes reasoning.

2 . The method of claim 1 , wherein at least some of the arguments of the positive and negative examples lack any conjunction that linguistically precedes a reasoning.

3 . The method of claim 1 , wherein at least some of the arguments of the positive and negative examples include an equivocal conjunction that can either linguistically precede a reasoning or have a meaning unrelated to reasoning.

4 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the machine learning-based contextual language model is a masked language model.

5 . The method of claim 4 , wherein the estimating of the probability to include reasoning comprises:

generating multiple variations of each of the arguments of the positive and negative examples by inserting a placeholder between every pair of consecutive words in each of the arguments of the positive and negative examples, such that each of the variations includes one placeholder;

using the masked language model to predict terms that can linguistically replace each of the placeholders, and to provide a probability for each replacement;

identifying, among the predicted terms, conjunctions that exist in a reasoning lexicon, wherein the reasoning lexicon comprises conjunctions that linguistically precede reasoning; and

assigning a single probability to each of the arguments of the positive and negative examples, based on the probabilities for replacement by the identified terms,

wherein each of the arguments of the positive and negative examples is labeled as being positive or negative based on the single probabilities of each of the arguments.

6 . The method of claim 5 , wherein the generating of the multiple variations is further by:

replacing every equivocal conjunction, that can either linguistically precede a reasoning or have a meaning unrelated to reasoning, with a placeholder.

7 . The method according to claim 1 , wherein the training and the applying are performed by at least one hardware processor.

8 . A system comprising:

(a) at least one hardware processor; and

(b) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having program code embodied therewith, the program code executable by said at least one hardware processor to:

train a machine learning classifier to estimate a probability that a new argument includes reasoning, wherein the training is based on positive and negative examples each being an argument that is estimated, by a machine learning-based contextual language model, to have a relatively high probability to include reasoning or a relatively low probability to include reasoning, respectively; and

apply the trained machine learning classifier to the new argument, to estimate the probability that the new argument includes reasoning.

9 . The system of claim 8 , wherein at least some of the arguments of the positive and negative examples lack any conjunction that linguistically precedes a reasoning.

10 . The system of claim 8 , wherein at least some of the arguments of the positive and negative examples include an equivocal conjunction that can either linguistically precede a reasoning or have a meaning unrelated to reasoning.

11 . The system of claim 8 , wherein the machine learning-based contextual language model is a masked language model.

12 . The system of claim 11 , wherein the estimating of the probability to include reasoning comprises:

generating multiple variations of each of the arguments of the positive and negative examples by inserting a placeholder between every pair of consecutive words in each of the arguments of the positive and negative examples, such that each of the variations includes one placeholder;

using the masked language model to predict terms that can linguistically replace each of the placeholders, and to provide a probability for each replacement;

identifying, among the predicted terms, conjunctions that exist in a reasoning lexicon, wherein the reasoning lexicon comprises conjunctions that linguistically precede reasoning; and

assigning a single probability to each of the arguments of the positive and negative examples, based on the probabilities for replacement by the identified terms,

wherein each of the arguments of the positive and negative examples is labeled as being positive or negative based on the single probabilities of each of the arguments.

13 . The system of claim 12 , wherein the generating of the multiple variations is further by:

replacing every equivocal conjunction, that can either linguistically precede a reasoning or have a meaning unrelated to reasoning, with a placeholder.

14 . A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having program code embodied therewith, the program code executable by at least one hardware processor to:

train a machine learning classifier to estimate a probability that a new argument includes reasoning, wherein the training is based on positive and negative examples each being an argument that is estimated, by a machine learning-based contextual language model, to have a relatively high probability to include reasoning or a relatively low probability to include reasoning, respectively; and

apply the trained machine learning classifier to the new argument, to estimate the probability that the new argument includes reasoning.

15 . The computer program product of claim 14 , wherein at least some of the arguments of the positive and negative examples lack any conjunction that linguistically precedes a reasoning.

16 . The computer program product of claim 14 , wherein at least some of the arguments of the positive and negative examples include an equivocal conjunction that can either linguistically precede a reasoning or have a meaning unrelated to reasoning.

17 . The computer program product of claim 14 , wherein the contextual language model is a masked language model.

18 . The computer program product of claim 17 , wherein the estimating of the probability to include reasoning comprises:

generating multiple variations of each of the arguments of the positive and negative examples by inserting a placeholder between every pair of consecutive words in each of the arguments of the positive and negative examples, such that each of the variations includes one placeholder;

using the masked language model to predict terms that can linguistically replace each of the placeholders, and to provide a probability for each replacement;

identifying, among the predicted terms, conjunctions that exist in a reasoning lexicon, wherein the reasoning lexicon comprises conjunctions that linguistically precede reasoning; and

assigning a single probability to each of the arguments of the positive and negative examples, based on the probabilities for replacement by the identified terms,

wherein each of the arguments of the positive and negative examples is labeled as being positive or negative based on the single probabilities of each of the arguments.

19 . The computer program product of claim 18 , wherein the generating of the multiple variations is further by:

replacing every equivocal conjunction, that can either linguistically precede a reasoning or have a meaning unrelated to reasoning, with a placeholder.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Jan 29, 2023
From: GRETZ, AVISHAI; TOLEDO, ASSAF; COHEN-KARLIK, EDO; SLONIM, NOAM
To: INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
Reel/Frame 062519/0840 →
Continuity (1)
Related Publication 20240256779A1 · Aug 1, 2024
References Cited (39)
US 10133791B1 · Chan · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 10229675B2 · Scheiner · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10402495B1 · Rush · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10607598B1 · Larson · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 11651161B2 · Gretz · 2023 [cited by examiner]
US 20070183655A1 · Konig · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20150095017A1 · Mnih · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 20160196299A1 · Allen · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 20170017635A1 · Leliwa · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170270100A1 · Audhkhasi · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180357220A1 · Galitsky · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180357221A1 · Galitsky · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20190042567A1 · Vidhani · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20190138595A1 · Galitsky · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190272323A1 · Galitsky · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20190311641A1 · Plant · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20200342354A1 · Inagaki · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200401661A1 · Kota · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20210004541A1 · Saito · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20210019339A1 · Ghulati · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210103775A1 · Glass · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210182663A1 · Galuten · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210209513A1 · Torres · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20210256214A1 · Gretz · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20220130160A1 · Feng · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220138559A1 · Gangi Reddy · 2022 [cited by applicant]
A. Radford et al., “Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners,” Online at https://cdn.openai.com/better-language-models/language_models_are_unsupervised_multitask_learners.pdf, Feb. 2019. [cited by applicant]
A. Sorgente et al., “Automatic extraction of cause-effect relations in Natural Language Text,” Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Information Filtering and Retrieval, Dec. 2013. [cited by applicant]
G. Sui et al., “Joker at SemEval-2018 Task 12: The Argument Reasoning Comprehension with Neural Attention”; Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2018), pp. 1129-1132, Jan. 2018. [cited by applicant]
I. Habernal et al., “The Argument Reasoning Comprehension Task: Identification and Reconstruction of Implicit Warrants”; Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2018, pp. 1930-1940, Jun. 2018. [cited by applicant]
J. Camacho-Collados et al., “From Word to Sense Embeddings: A Survey on Vector Representations of Meaning,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 63 (2018) 743-788, May 14, 2018. [cited by applicant]
J. Devlin et al., “BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding”; Online at: arXiv:1810.04805v2 [cs.CL], May 24, 2019. [cited by applicant]
L. Aina et al., “Putting words in context: LSTM language models and lexical ambiguity”; Online at: arXiv:1906.05149v1 [cs.CL], Jun. 12, 2019. [cited by applicant]
O. Biran et al., “Identifying justifications in written dialogs by classifying text as argumentative,” International Journal of Semantic Computing 05(04), Dec. 2011. [cited by applicant]
T. Dasgupta et al., “Automatic Extraction of Causal Relations from Text using Linguistically Informed Deep Neural Networks”; Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2018 Conference, pp. 306-316, Jul. 2018. [cited by applicant]
Z. Yang et al., “XLNet: Generalized Autoregressive Pretraining for Language Understanding”; Online at: arXiv:1906.08237v1 [cs.CL], Jun. 19, 2019. [cited by applicant]
United States Final Rejection dated Nov. 9, 2022, 11 pages, in U.S. Appl. No. 16/789,464. [cited by applicant]
United States Non-final Rejection dated May 25, 2022, 11 pages, in U.S. Appl. No. 16/789,464. [cited by applicant]
United States Notice of Allowance dated Jan. 9, 2023, 10 pages, in U.S. Appl. No. 16/789,464. [cited by applicant]