Comparative Analysis of Argumentative Relation Validity in Annotated Corpora

Abstract

This study evaluates the impact of dataset characteristics and annotation biases on argumen-(breakpoint)tative relations. Since datasets annotate actual discussions, the proportion of linked arguments is low, and the frequency varies depending on the type of relation. Additionally, direct comparison is challenging due to the differing goals of the dialogues and the individuality of annotators for each corpus. This research conducts estimations of argumentative relations under various conditions and reassesses the validity of existing corpora to explore methods for improving argument analysis.