When assessing the similarity of arguments, researchers typically use approaches that do not provide interpretable evidence or justifications for their ratings. Hence, the features that determine argument similarity remain elusive. We address this issue by introducing novel argument similarity metrics that aim at high performance and explainability. We show that Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) graphs can be useful for representing arguments, and that novel AMR graph metrics can offer explanations for argument similarity ratings. We start from the hypothesis that similar premises often lead to similar conclusions—and extend an approach for AMR-based argument similarity rating by estimating, in addition, the similarity of conclusions that we automatically infer from the arguments used as premises. We show that AMR similarity metrics make argument similarity judgements more interpretable and may even support argument quality judgements. Our approach provides significant performance improvements over strong baselines in a fully unsupervised setting. Finally, we make first steps to address the problem of reference-less evaluation of argumentative conclusion generations.

Machine translation of ancient languages faces a low-resource problem, caused by the limited amount of available textual source data and their translations. We present a multi-task modeling approach to translating Middle Egyptian that is inspired by recent successful approaches to multi-task learning in end-to-end speech translation. We leverage the phonographic aspect of the hieroglyphic writing system, and show that similar to multi-task learning of speech recognition and translation, joint learning and sharing of structural information between hieroglyph transcriptions, translations, and POS tagging can improve direct translation of hieroglyphs by several BLEU points, using a minimal amount of manual transcriptions.