In this paper, we present our submission to the MM-ArgFallacy2025 shared task, which aims to advance research in multimodal argument mining, focusing on logical fallacies in political debates. Our approach uses pretrained Transformer-based models and proposes several ways to leverage context. In the fallacy classification subtask, our models achieved macro F1-scores of 0.4444 (text), 0.3559 (audio), and 0.4403 (multimodal). Our multimodal model showed performance comparable to the text-only model, suggesting potential for improvements.
Rhetorical figures play an important role in our communication. They are used to convey subtle, implicit meaning, or to emphasize statements. We notice them in hate speech, fake news, and propaganda. By improving the systems for computational detection of rhetorical figures, we can also improve tasks such as hate speech and fake news detection, sentiment analysis, opinion mining, or argument mining. Unfortunately, there is a lack of annotated data, as well as qualified annotators that would help us build large corpora to train machine learning models for the detection of rhetorical figures. The situation is particularly difficult in languages other than English, and for rhetorical figures other than metaphor, sarcasm, and irony. To overcome this issue, we develop a web application called "Find your Figure" that facilitates the identification and annotation of German rhetorical figures. The application is based on the German Rhetorical ontology GRhOOT which we have specially adapted for this purpose. In addition, we improve the user experience with Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG). In this paper, we present the restructuring of the ontology, the development of the web application, and the built-in RAG pipeline. We also identify the optimal RAG settings for our application. Our approach is one of the first to practically use rhetorical ontologies in combination with RAG and shows promising results.
Explaining Artificial Intelligence (AI) decisions is a major challenge nowadays in AI, in particular when applied to sensitive scenarios like medicine and law. However, the need to explain the rationale behind decisions is a main issue also for human-based deliberation as it is important to justify \textit{why} a certain decision has been taken. Resident medical doctors for instance are required not only to provide a (possibly correct) diagnosis, but also to explain how they reached a certain conclusion. Developing new tools to aid residents to train their explanation skills is therefore a central objective of AI in education. In this paper, we follow this direction, and we present, to the best of our knowledge, the first multilingual dataset for Medical Question Answering where correct and incorrect diagnoses for a clinical case are enriched with a natural language explanation written by doctors. These explanations have been manually annotated with argument components (i.e., premise, claim) and argument relations (i.e., attack, support), resulting in the Multilingual CasiMedicos-Arg dataset which consists of 558 clinical cases in four languages (English, Spanish, French, Italian) with explanations, where we annotated 5021 claims, 2313 premises, 2431 support relations, and 1106 attack relations. We conclude by showing how competitive baselines perform over this challenging dataset for the argument mining task.
Dialogical Argument Mining(DialAM) is an important branch of Argument Mining(AM). DialAM-2024 is a shared task focusing on dialogical argument mining, which requires us to identify argumentative relations and illocutionary relations among proposition nodes and locution nodes. To accomplish this, we propose a two-stage pipeline, which includes the Two-Step S-Node Prediction Model in Stage 1 and the YA-Node Prediction Model in Stage 2. We also augment the training data in both stages and introduce context in Stage 2. We successfully completed the task and achieved good results. Our team Pokemon ranked 1st in the ARI Focused score and 4th in the Global Focused score.
Recent research on sequence labelling has been exploring different strategies to mitigate the lack of manually annotated data for the large majority of the world languages. Among others, the most successful approaches have been based on (i) the cross-lingual transfer capabilities of multilingual pre-trained language models (model-transfer), (ii) data translation and label projection (data-transfer) and (iii), prompt-based learning by reusing the mask objective to exploit the few-shot capabilities of pre-trained language models (few-shot). Previous work seems to conclude that model-transfer outperforms data-transfer methods and that few-shot techniques based on prompting are superior to updating the model's weights via fine-tuning. In this paper, we empirically demonstrate that, for Argument Mining, a sequence labelling task which requires the detection of long and complex discourse structures, previous insights on cross-lingual transfer or few-shot learning do not apply. Contrary to previous work, we show that for Argument Mining data transfer obtains better results than model-transfer and that fine-tuning outperforms few-shot methods. Regarding the former, the domain of the dataset used for data-transfer seems to be a deciding factor, while, for few-shot, the type of task (length and complexity of the sequence spans) and sampling method prove to be crucial.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have become ubiquitous in NLP and deep learning. In-Context Learning (ICL) has been suggested as a bridging paradigm between the training-free and fine-tuning LLMs settings. In ICL, an LLM is conditioned to solve tasks by means of a few solved demonstration examples included as prompt. Argument Mining (AM) aims to extract the complex argumentative structure of a text, and Argument Type Classification (ATC) is an essential sub-task of AM. We introduce an ICL strategy for ATC combining kNN-based examples selection and majority vote ensembling. In the training-free ICL setting, we show that GPT-4 is able to leverage relevant information from only a few demonstration examples and achieve very competitive classification accuracy on ATC. We further set up a fine-tuning strategy incorporating well-crafted structural features given directly in textual form. In this setting, GPT-3.5 achieves state-of-the-art performance on ATC. Overall, these results emphasize the emergent ability of LLMs to grasp global discursive flow in raw text in both off-the-shelf and fine-tuned setups.
With the recent advances of large language models (LLMs), it is no longer infeasible to build an automated debate system that helps people to synthesise persuasive arguments. Previous work attempted this task by integrating multiple components. In our work, we introduce an argument mining dataset that captures the end-to-end process of preparing an argumentative essay for a debate, which covers the tasks of claim and evidence identification (Task 1 ED), evidence convincingness ranking (Task 2 ECR), argumentative essay summarisation and human preference ranking (Task 3 ASR) and metric learning for automated evaluation of resulting essays, based on human feedback along argument quality dimensions (Task 4 SQE). Our dataset contains 14k examples of claims that are fully annotated with the various properties supporting the aforementioned tasks. We evaluate multiple generative baselines for each of these tasks, including representative LLMs. We find, that while they show promising results on individual tasks in our benchmark, their end-to-end performance on all four tasks in succession deteriorates significantly, both in automated measures as well as in human-centred evaluation. This challenge presented by our proposed dataset motivates future research on end-to-end argument mining and summarisation. The repository of this project is available at https://github.com/HaoBytes/ArgSum-Datatset
We propose WIBA, a novel framework and suite of methods that enable the comprehensive understanding of "What Is Being Argued" across contexts. Our approach develops a comprehensive framework that detects: (a) the existence, (b) the topic, and (c) the stance of an argument, correctly accounting for the logical dependence among the three tasks. Our algorithm leverages the fine-tuning and prompt-engineering of Large Language Models. We evaluate our approach and show that it performs well in all the three capabilities. First, we develop and release an Argument Detection model that can classify a piece of text as an argument with an F1 score between 79% and 86% on three different benchmark datasets. Second, we release a language model that can identify the topic being argued in a sentence, be it implicit or explicit, with an average similarity score of 71%, outperforming current naive methods by nearly 40%. Finally, we develop a method for Argument Stance Classification, and evaluate the capability of our approach, showing it achieves a classification F1 score between 71% and 78% across three diverse benchmark datasets. Our evaluation demonstrates that WIBA allows the comprehensive understanding of What Is Being Argued in large corpora across diverse contexts, which is of core interest to many applications in linguistics, communication, and social and computer science. To facilitate accessibility to the advancements outlined in this work, we release WIBA as a free open access platform (wiba.dev).
Argument structure learning~(ASL) entails predicting relations between arguments. Because it can structure a document to facilitate its understanding, it has been widely applied in many fields~(medical, commercial, and scientific domains). Despite its broad utilization, ASL remains a challenging task because it involves examining the complex relationships between the sentences in a potentially unstructured discourse. To resolve this problem, we have developed a simple yet effective approach called Dual-tower Multi-scale cOnvolution neural Network~(DMON) for the ASL task. Specifically, we organize arguments into a relationship matrix that together with the argument embeddings forms a relationship tensor and design a mechanism to capture relations with contextual arguments. Experimental results on three different-domain argument mining datasets demonstrate that our framework outperforms state-of-the-art models. The code is available at https://github.com/VRCMF/DMON.git .
Key Point Analysis (KPA), the summarization of multiple arguments into a concise collection of key points, continues to be a significant and unresolved issue within the field of argument mining. Existing models adapt a two-stage pipeline of clustering arguments or generating key points for argument clusters. This approach rely on semantic similarity instead of measuring the existence of shared key points among arguments. Additionally, it only models the intra-cluster relationship among arguments, disregarding the inter-cluster relationship between arguments that do not share key points. To address these limitations, we propose a novel approach for KPA with pairwise generation and graph partitioning. Our objective is to train a generative model that can simultaneously provide a score indicating the presence of shared key point between a pair of arguments and generate the shared key point. Subsequently, to map generated redundant key points to a concise set of key points, we proceed to construct an arguments graph by considering the arguments as vertices, the generated key points as edges, and the scores as edge weights. We then propose a graph partitioning algorithm to partition all arguments sharing the same key points to the same subgraph. Notably, our experimental findings demonstrate that our proposed model surpasses previous models when evaluated on both the ArgKP and QAM datasets.
Evaluating the quality of arguments is a crucial aspect of any system leveraging argument mining. However, it is a challenge to obtain reliable and consistent annotations regarding argument quality, as this usually requires domain-specific expertise of the annotators. Even among experts, the assessment of argument quality is often inconsistent due to the inherent subjectivity of this task. In this paper, we study the potential of using state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) as proxies for argument quality annotators. To assess the capability of LLMs in this regard, we analyze the agreement between model, human expert, and human novice annotators based on an established taxonomy of argument quality dimensions. Our findings highlight that LLMs can produce consistent annotations, with a moderately high agreement with human experts across most of the quality dimensions. Moreover, we show that using LLMs as additional annotators can significantly improve the agreement between annotators. These results suggest that LLMs can serve as a valuable tool for automated argument quality assessment, thus streamlining and accelerating the evaluation of large argument datasets.
Learning argumentative writing is challenging. Besides writing fundamentals such as syntax and grammar, learners must select and arrange argument components meaningfully to create high-quality essays. To support argumentative writing computationally, one step is to mine the argumentative structure. When combined with automatic essay scoring, interactions of the argumentative structure and quality scores can be exploited for comprehensive writing support. Although studies have shown the usefulness of using information about the argumentative structure for essay scoring, no argument mining corpus with ground-truth essay quality annotations has been published yet. Moreover, none of the existing corpora contain essays written by school students specifically. To fill this research gap, we present a German corpus of 1,320 essays from school students of two age groups. Each essay has been manually annotated for argumentative structure and quality on multiple levels of granularity. We propose baseline approaches to argument mining and essay scoring, and we analyze interactions between both tasks, thereby laying the ground for quality-oriented argumentative writing support.
Instruction tuning is an important step in making language models useful for direct user interaction. However, the legal domain is underrepresented in typical instruction datasets (e.g., only 10 out of 1600+ tasks in Super-NaturalInstructions). To study whether instruction tuning on legal datasets is necessary for strong legal reasoning, we aggregate 58 annotated legal datasets and write instructions for each, creating LawInstruct. LawInstruct covers 17 global jurisdictions, 24 languages and a total of 12M examples across diverse tasks such as legal QA, summarization of court cases, and legal argument mining. We evaluate our models on LegalBench, measuring legal reasoning across five categories in 162 challenging and realistic legal tasks, and MMLU, to measure potential drops in general reasoning capabilities. We find that legal-specific instruction tuning on Flan-T5 - yielding FLawN-T5 - improves performance on LegalBench across all model sizes, with an aggregate increase of 15 points or 50% over Flan-T5 for the base size. No model size shows performance drops in MMLU. We publish LawInstruct as a resource for further study of instruction tuning in the legal domain.
Twitter has emerged as a global hub for engaging in online conversations and as a research corpus for various disciplines that have recognized the significance of its user-generated content. Argument mining is an important analytical task for processing and understanding online discourse. Specifically, it aims to identify the structural elements of arguments, denoted as information and inference. These elements, however, are not static and may require context within the conversation they are in, yet there is a lack of data and annotation frameworks addressing this dynamic aspect on Twitter. We contribute TACO, the first dataset of Twitter Arguments utilizing 1,814 tweets covering 200 entire conversations spanning six heterogeneous topics annotated with an agreement of 0.718 Krippendorff's alpha among six experts. Second, we provide our annotation framework, incorporating definitions from the Cambridge Dictionary, to define and identify argument components on Twitter. Our transformer-based classifier achieves an 85.06\% macro F1 baseline score in detecting arguments. Moreover, our data reveals that Twitter users tend to engage in discussions involving informed inferences and information. TACO serves multiple purposes, such as training tweet classifiers to manage tweets based on inference and information elements, while also providing valuable insights into the conversational reply patterns of tweets.
Rhetorical Structure Theory implies no single discourse interpretation of a text, and the limitations of RST parsers further exacerbate inconsistent parsing of similar structures. Therefore, it is important to take into account that the same argumentative structure can be found in semantically similar texts with varying rhetorical structures. In this work, the differences between paraphrases within the same argument scheme are evaluated from a rhetorical perspective. The study proposes a deep dependency parsing model to assess the connection between rhetorical and argument structures. The model utilizes rhetorical relations; RST structures of paraphrases serve as training data augmentations. The method allows for end-to-end argumentation analysis using a rhetorical tree instead of a word sequence. It is evaluated on the bilingual Microtexts corpus, and the first results on fully-fledged argument parsing for the Russian version of the corpus are reported. The results suggest that argument mining can benefit from multiple variants of discourse structure.
With the increasing amount of problematic peer reviews in top AI conferences, the community is urgently in need of automatic quality control measures. In this paper, we restrict our attention to substantiation -- one popular quality aspect indicating whether the claims in a review are sufficiently supported by evidence -- and provide a solution automatizing this evaluation process. To achieve this goal, we first formulate the problem as claim-evidence pair extraction in scientific peer reviews, and collect SubstanReview, the first annotated dataset for this task. SubstanReview consists of 550 reviews from NLP conferences annotated by domain experts. On the basis of this dataset, we train an argument mining system to automatically analyze the level of substantiation in peer reviews. We also perform data analysis on the SubstanReview dataset to obtain meaningful insights on peer reviewing quality in NLP conferences over recent years.
Computational argumentation has become an essential tool in various domains, including law, public policy, and artificial intelligence. It is an emerging research field in natural language processing that attracts increasing attention. Research on computational argumentation mainly involves two types of tasks: argument mining and argument generation. As large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in understanding context and generating natural language, it is worthwhile to evaluate the performance of LLMs on diverse computational argumentation tasks. This work aims to embark on an assessment of LLMs, such as ChatGPT, Flan models, and LLaMA2 models, in both zero-shot and few-shot settings. We organize existing tasks into six main categories and standardize the format of fourteen openly available datasets. In addition, we present a new benchmark dataset on counter speech generation that aims to holistically evaluate the end-to-end performance of LLMs on argument mining and argument generation. Extensive experiments show that LLMs exhibit commendable performance across most of the datasets, demonstrating their capabilities in the field of argumentation. Our analysis offers valuable suggestions for evaluating computational argumentation and its integration with LLMs in future research endeavors.
The COVID-19 pandemic has sparked numerous discussions on social media platforms, with users sharing their views on topics such as mask-wearing and vaccination. To facilitate the evaluation of neural models for stance detection and premise classification, we organized the Social Media Mining for Health (SMM4H) 2022 Shared Task 2. This competition utilized manually annotated posts on three COVID-19-related topics: school closures, stay-at-home orders, and wearing masks. In this paper, we extend the previous work and present newly collected data on vaccination from Twitter to assess the performance of models on a different topic. To enhance the accuracy and effectiveness of our evaluation, we employed various strategies to aggregate tweet texts with claims, including models with feature-level (early) fusion and dual-view architectures from SMM4H 2022 leaderboard. Our primary objective was to create a valuable dataset and perform an extensive experimental evaluation to support future research in argument mining in the health domain.
A main goal of Argument Mining (AM) is to analyze an author's stance. Unlike previous AM datasets focusing only on text, the shared task at the 10th Workshop on Argument Mining introduces a dataset including both text and images. Importantly, these images contain both visual elements and optical characters. Our new framework, TILFA (A Unified Framework for Text, Image, and Layout Fusion in Argument Mining), is designed to handle this mixed data. It excels at not only understanding text but also detecting optical characters and recognizing layout details in images. Our model significantly outperforms existing baselines, earning our team, KnowComp, the 1st place in the leaderboard of Argumentative Stance Classification subtask in this shared task.
We evaluate two large language models (LLMs) ability to perform argumentative reasoning. We experiment with argument mining (AM) and argument pair extraction (APE), and evaluate the LLMs' ability to recognize arguments under progressively more abstract input and output (I/O) representations (e.g., arbitrary label sets, graphs, etc.). Unlike the well-known evaluation of prompt phrasings, abstraction evaluation retains the prompt's phrasing but tests reasoning capabilities. We find that scoring-wise the LLMs match or surpass the SOTA in AM and APE, and under certain I/O abstractions LLMs perform well, even beating chain-of-thought--we call this symbolic prompting. However, statistical analysis on the LLMs outputs when subject to small, yet still human-readable, alterations in the I/O representations (e.g., asking for BIO tags as opposed to line numbers) showed that the models are not performing reasoning. This suggests that LLM applications to some tasks, such as data labelling and paper reviewing, must be done with care.