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 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/HarrywillDr/ArgSum-Datatset.

The proliferation of Conversational AI agents (CAAs) has emphasised the need to distinguish between human and machine-generated texts, with implications spanning digital forensics and cybersecurity. While prior research primarily focussed on distinguishing human from machine-generated text, our study takes a more refined approach by analysing different CAAs. We construct linguistic profiles for five CAAs, aiming to identify Uniquely Identifiable Linguistic Patterns (UILPs) for each model using authorship attribution techniques. Authorship attribution (AA) is the task of identifying the author of an unknown text from a pool of known authors. Our research seeks to answer crucial questions about the existence of UILPs in CAAs, the linguistic overlap between various text types generated by these models, and the feasibility of Authorship Attribution (AA) for CAAs based on UILPs. Promisingly, we are able to attribute CAAs based on their original texts with a weighted F1-score of 96.94%. Further, we are able to attribute CAAs according to their writing style (as specified by prompts), yielding a weighted F1-score of 95.84%, which sets the baseline for this task. By employing principal component analysis (PCA), we identify the top 100 most informative linguistic features for each CAA, achieving a weighted F1-score ranging from 86.04% to 97.93%, and an overall weighted F1-score of 93.86%.

How do different generalised quantifiers affect the behaviour of transformer-based language models (TLMs)? The recent popularity of TLMs and the central role generalised quantifiers have traditionally played in linguistics and logic bring this question into particular focus. The current research investigating this subject has not utilised a task defined purely in a logical sense, and thus, has not captured the underlying logical significance of generalised quantifiers. Consequently, they have not answered the aforementioned question faithfully or adequately. Therefore, we investigate how different generalised quantifiers affect TLMs by employing a textual entailment problem defined in a purely logical sense, namely, model-checking with natural language. Our approach permits the automatic construction of datasets with respect to which we can assess the ability of TLMs to learn the meanings of generalised quantifiers. Our investigation reveals that TLMs generally can comprehend the logical semantics of the most common generalised quantifiers, but that distinct quantifiers influence TLMs in varying ways.