Argument mining has garnered increasing attention over the years, with the recent advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) further propelling this trend. However, current argument relations remain relatively simplistic and foundational, struggling to capture the full scope of argument information, particularly when it comes to representing complex argument structures in real-world scenarios. To address this limitation, we propose 14 fine-grained relation types from both vertical and horizontal dimensions, thereby capturing the intricate interplay between argument components for a thorough understanding of argument structure. On this basis, we conducted extensive experiments on three tasks: argument component detection, relation prediction, and automated essay grading. Additionally, we explored the impact of writing quality on argument component detection and relation prediction, as well as the connections between discourse relations and argumentative features. The findings highlight the importance of fine-grained argumentative annotations for argumentative writing quality assessment and encourage multi-dimensional argument analysis.

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.

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.

Argument mining is to analyze argument structure and extract important argument information from unstructured text. An argument mining system can help people automatically gain causal and logical information behind the text. As argumentative corpus gradually increases, like more people begin to argue and debate on social media, argument mining from them is becoming increasingly critical. However, argument mining is still a big challenge in natural language tasks due to its difficulty, and relative techniques are not mature. For example, research on non-tree argument mining needs to be done more. Most works just focus on extracting tree structure argument information. Moreover, current methods cannot accurately describe and capture argument relations and do not predict their types. In this paper, we propose a novel neural model called AutoAM to solve these problems. We first introduce the argument component attention mechanism in our model. It can capture the relevant information between argument components, so our model can better perform argument mining. Our model is a universal end-to-end framework, which can analyze argument structure without constraints like tree structure and complete three subtasks of argument mining in one model. The experiment results show that our model outperforms the existing works on several metrics in two public datasets.

Argument mining automatically identifies and extracts the structure of inference and reasoning conveyed in natural language arguments. To the best of our knowledge, most of the state-of-the-art works in this field have focused on using tree-like structures and linguistic modeling. But, these approaches are not able to model more complex structures which are often found in online forums and real world argumentation structures. In this paper, a novel methodology for argument mining is proposed which employs attention-based embeddings for link prediction to model the causational hierarchies in typical argument structures prevalent in online discourse.

Nowadays the medical domain is receiving more and more attention in applications involving Artificial Intelligence. Clinicians have to deal with an enormous amount of unstructured textual data to make a conclusion about patients' health in their everyday life. Argument mining helps to provide a structure to such data by detecting argumentative components in the text and classifying the relations between them. However, as it is the case for many tasks in Natural Language Processing in general and in medical text processing in particular, the large majority of the work on computational argumentation has been done only for English. This is also the case with the only dataset available for argumentation in the medical domain, namely, the annotated medical data of abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) from the MEDLINE database. In order to mitigate the lack of annotated data for other languages, we empirically investigate several strategies to perform argument mining and classification in medical texts for a language for which no annotated data is available. This project shows that automatically translating and project annotations from English to a target language (Spanish) is an effective way to generate annotated data without manual intervention. Furthermore, our experiments demonstrate that the translation and projection approach outperforms zero-shot cross-lingual approaches using a large masked multilingual language model. Finally, we show how the automatically generated data in Spanish can also be used to improve results in the original English evaluation setting.

Argumentation is a type of discourse where speakers try to persuade their audience about the reasonableness of a claim by presenting supportive arguments. Most work in argument mining has focused on modeling arguments in monologues. We propose a computational model for argument mining in online persuasive discussion forums that brings together the micro-level (argument as product) and macro-level (argument as process) models of argumentation. Fundamentally, this approach relies on identifying relations between components of arguments in a discussion thread. Our approach for relation prediction uses contextual information in terms of fine-tuning a pre-trained language model and leveraging discourse relations based on Rhetorical Structure Theory. We additionally propose a candidate selection method to automatically predict what parts of one's argument will be targeted by other participants in the discussion. Our models obtain significant improvements compared to recent state-of-the-art approaches using pointer networks and a pre-trained language model.

End-to-end argument mining has enabled the development of new automated essay scoring (AES) systems that use argumentative features (e.g., number of claims, number of support relations) in addition to traditional legacy features (e.g., grammar, discourse structure) when scoring persuasive essays. While prior research has proposed different argumentative features as well as empirically demonstrated their utility for AES, these studies have all had important limitations. In this paper we identify a set of desiderata for evaluating the use of argument mining for AES, introduce an end-to-end argument mining system and associated argumentative feature sets, and present the results of several studies that both satisfy the desiderata and demonstrate the value-added of argument mining for scoring persuasive essays.