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.

Argumentation is the process by which humans rationally elaborate their thoughts and opinions in written (e.g., essays) or spoken (e.g., debates) contexts. Argument Mining research, however, has been focused on either written argumentation or spoken argumentation but without considering any additional information, e.g., speech acts and intentions. In this paper, we present an overview of DialAM-2024, the first shared task in dialogical argument mining, where argumentative relations and speech illocutions are modelled together in a unified framework. The task was divided into two different sub-tasks: the identification of propositional relations and the identification of illocutionary relations. Six different teams explored different methodologies to leverage both sources of information to reconstruct argument maps containing the locutions uttered in the speeches and the argumentative propositions implicit in them. The best performing team achieved an F1-score of 67.05% in the overall evaluation of the reconstruction of complete argument maps, considering both sub-tasks included in the DialAM-2024 shared task.

Argument mining has typically been researched for specific corpora belonging to concrete languages and domains independently in each research work. Human argumentation, however, has domain- and language-dependent linguistic features that determine the content and structure of arguments. Also, when deploying argument mining systems in the wild, we might not be able to control some of these features. Therefore, an important aspect that has not been thoroughly investigated in the argument mining literature is the robustness of such systems to variations in language and domain. In this paper, we present a complete analysis across three different languages and three different domains that allow us to have a better understanding on how to leverage the scarce available corpora to design argument mining systems that are more robust to natural language variations.

In this paper, we describe VivesDebate-Speech, a corpus of spoken argumentation created to leverage audio features for argument mining tasks. The creation of this corpus represents an important contribution to the intersection of speech processing and argument mining communities, and one of the most complete publicly available resources in this topic. Moreover, we have performed a set of first-of-their-kind experiments which show an improvement when integrating audio features into the argument mining pipeline. The provided results can be used as a baseline for future research.

The lack of annotated data on professional argumentation and complete argumentative debates has led to the oversimplification and the inability of approaching more complex natural language processing tasks. Such is the case of the automatic evaluation of complete professional argumentative debates. In this paper, we propose an original hybrid method to automatically predict the winning stance in this kind of debates. For that purpose, we combine concepts from argumentation theory such as argumentation frameworks and semantics, with Transformer-based architectures and neural graph networks. Furthermore, we obtain promising results that lay the basis on an unexplored new instance of the automatic analysis of natural language arguments.

Previous work on the automatic identification of fallacies in natural language text has typically approached the problem in constrained experimental setups that make it difficult to understand the applicability and usefulness of the proposals in the real world. In this paper, we present the first analysis of the limitations that these data-driven approaches could show in real situations. For that purpose, we first create a validation corpus consisting of natural language argumentation schemes. Second, we provide new empirical results to the emerging task of identifying fallacies in natural language text. Third, we analyse the errors observed outside of the testing data domains considering the new validation corpus. Finally, we point out some important limitations observed in our analysis that should be taken into account in future research in this topic. Specifically, if we want to deploy these systems in the Wild.