Argument mining (AM) involves the identification of argument relations (AR) between Argumentative Discourse Units (ADUs). The essence of ARs among ADUs is context-dependent and lies in maintaining a coherent flow of ideas, often centered around the relations between discussed entities, topics, themes or concepts. However, these relations are not always explicitly stated; rather, inferred from implicit chains of reasoning connecting the concepts addressed in the ADUs. While humans can infer such background knowledge, machines face challenges when the contextual cues are not explicitly provided. This paper leverages external resources, including WordNet, ConceptNet, and Wikipedia to identify semantic paths (knowledge paths) connecting the concepts discussed in the ADUs to obtain the implicit chains of reasoning. To effectively leverage these paths for AR prediction, we propose attention-based Multi-Network architectures. Various architecture are evaluated on the external resources, and the Wikipedia based configuration attains F-scores of 0.85, 0.84, 0.70, and 0.87, respectively, on four diverse datasets, showing strong performance over the baselines.

Measuring advances in argument mining is one of the main challenges in the area. Different theories of argument, heterogeneous annotations, and a varied set of argumentation domains make it difficult to contextualise and understand the results reported in different work from a general perspective. In this paper, we present ARIES, a general benchmark for Argument Relation Identification aimed at providing with a standard evaluation for argument mining research. ARIES covers the three different language modelling approaches: sequence and token modelling, and sequence-to-sequence-to-sequence alignment, together with the three main Transformer-based model architectures: encoder-only, decoder-only, and encoder-decoder. Furthermore, the benchmark consists of eight different argument mining datasets, covering the most common argumentation domains, and standardised with the same annotation structures. This paper provides a first comprehensive and comparative set of results in argument mining across a broad range of configurations to compare with, both advancing the state-of-the-art, and establishing a standard way to measure future advances in the area. Across varied task setups and architectures, our experiments reveal consistent challenges in cross-dataset evaluation, with notably poor results. Given the models’ struggle to acquire transferable skills, the task remains challenging, opening avenues for future research.

This work presents an approach decomposing propositions into four functional components and identify the patterns linking those components to determine argument structure. The entities addressed by a proposition are target concepts and the features selected to make a point about the target concepts are aspects. A line of reasoning is followed by providing evidence for the points made about the target concepts via aspects. Opinions on target concepts and opinions on aspects are used to support or attack the ideas expressed by target concepts and aspects. The relations between aspects, target concepts, opinions on target concepts and aspects are used to infer the argument relations. Propositions are connected iteratively to form a graph structure. The approach is generic in that it is not tuned for a specific corpus and evaluated on three different corpora from the literature: AAEC, AMT, US2016G1tv and achieved an F score of 0.79, 0.77 and 0.64, respectively.