Online conversations have become more prevalent on public discussion platforms (e.g. Reddit). With growing controversial topics, it is desirable to summarize not only diverse arguments, but also their rationale and justification. Early studies on text summarization focus on capturing general salient information in source documents, overlooking the argumentative nature of online conversations. Recent research on conversation summarization although considers the argumentative relationship among sentences, fail to explicate deeper argument structure within sentences for summarization. In this paper, we propose a novel task of argument-aware quantitative summarization to reveal the claim-reason structure of arguments in conversations, with quantities measuring argument strength. We further propose ARQUSUMM, a novel framework to address the task. To reveal the underlying argument structure within sentences, ARQUSUMM leverages LLM few-shot learning grounded in the argumentation theory to identify propositions within sentences and their claim-reason relationships. For quantitative summarization, ARQUSUMM employs argument structure-aware clustering algorithms to aggregate arguments and quantify their support. Experiments show that ARQUSUMM outperforms existing conversation and quantitative summarization models and generate summaries representing argument structures that are more helpful to users, of high textual quality and quantification accuracy.

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.

Particularly in the structure of global discourse, coherence plays a pivotal role in human text comprehension and is a hallmark of high-quality text. This is especially true for persuasive texts, where coherent argument structures support claims effectively. This paper discusses and proposes methods for detecting, extracting and representing these global discourse structures in a proccess called Argument(ation) Mining. We begin by defining key terms and processes of discourse structure analysis, then continue to summarize existing research on the matter, and identify shortcomings in current argument component extraction and classification methods. Furthermore, we will outline an architecture for argument mining that focuses on making models more generalisable while overcoming challenges in the current field of research by utilizing novel NLP techniques. This paper reviews current knowledge, summarizes recent works, and outlines our NLP pipeline, aiming to contribute to the theoretical understanding of global discourse structures.

Logical reasoning is a critical component of Large Language Models (LLMs), and substantial research efforts in recent years have aimed to enhance their deductive reasoning capabilities. However, existing deductive reasoning benchmarks, which are crucial for evaluating and advancing LLMs, are inadequate due to their lack of task complexity, presence of prior knowledge as a confounder, and superficial error analysis. To address these deficiencies, we introduce JustLogic, a synthetically generated deductive reasoning benchmark designed for rigorous evaluation of LLMs. JustLogic is (i) highly complex, capable of generating a diverse range of linguistic patterns, vocabulary, and argument structures; (ii) prior knowledge independent, eliminating the advantage of models possessing prior knowledge and ensuring that only deductive reasoning is used to answer questions; and (iii) capable of in-depth error analysis on the heterogeneous effects of reasoning depth and argument form on model accuracy. Our experimental results on JustLogic reveal that most state-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs perform significantly worse than the human average, demonstrating substantial room for model improvement. All code and data are available at https://github.com/michaelchen-lab/JustLogic

Syntactic parsing is essential in natural-language processing, with constituent structure being one widely used description of syntax. Traditional views of constituency demand that constituents consist of adjacent words, but this poses challenges in analysing syntax with non-local dependencies, common in languages like German. Therefore, in a number of treebanks like NeGra and TIGER for German and DPTB for English, long-range dependencies are represented by crossing edges. Various grammar formalisms have been used to describe discontinuous trees - often with high time complexities for parsing. Transition-based parsing aims at reducing this factor by eliminating the need for an explicit grammar. Instead, neural networks are trained to produce trees given raw text input using supervised learning on large annotated corpora. An elegant proposal for a stack-free transition-based parser developed by Coavoux and Cohen (2019) successfully allows for the derivation of any discontinuous constituent tree over a sentence in worst-case quadratic time. The purpose of this work is to explore the introduction of supertag information into transition-based discontinuous constituent parsing. In lexicalised grammar formalisms like CCG (Steedman, 1989) informative categories are assigned to the words in a sentence and act as the building blocks for composing the sentence's syntax. These supertags indicate a word's structural role and syntactic relationship with surrounding items. The study examines incorporating supertag information by using a dedicated supertagger as additional input for a neural parser (pipeline) and by jointly training a neural model for both parsing and supertagging (multi-task). In addition to CCG, several other frameworks (LTAG-spinal, LCFRS) and sequence labelling tasks (chunking, dependency parsing) will be compared in terms of their suitability as auxiliary tasks for parsing.

In this paper, we study whether transformer-based language models can extract predicate argument structure from simple sentences. We firstly show that language models sometimes confuse which predicates apply to which objects. To mitigate this, we explore two tasks: question answering (Q/A), and first order logic (FOL) translation, and two regimes, prompting and finetuning. In FOL translation, we finetune several large language models on synthetic datasets designed to gauge their generalization abilities. For Q/A, we finetune encoder models like BERT and RoBERTa and use prompting for LLMs. The results show that FOL translation for LLMs is better suited to learn predicate argument structure.

With the growing complexity of fact verification tasks, the concern with "thoughtful" reasoning capabilities is increasing. However, recent fact verification benchmarks mainly focus on checking a narrow scope of semantic factoids within claims and lack an explicit logical reasoning process. In this paper, we introduce CheckWhy, a challenging dataset tailored to a novel causal fact verification task: checking the truthfulness of the causal relation within claims through rigorous reasoning steps. CheckWhy consists of over 19K "why" claim-evidence-argument structure triplets with supports, refutes, and not enough info labels. Each argument structure is composed of connected evidence, representing the reasoning process that begins with foundational evidence and progresses toward claim establishment. Through extensive experiments on state-of-the-art models, we validate the importance of incorporating the argument structure for causal fact verification. Moreover, the automated and human evaluation of argument structure generation reveals the difficulty in producing satisfying argument structure by fine-tuned models or Chain-of-Thought prompted LLMs, leaving considerable room for future improvements.

Compositional generalization refers to the ability to generalize to novel combinations of previously observed words and syntactic structures. Since it is regarded as a desired property of neural models, recent work has assessed compositional generalization in machine translation as well as semantic parsing. However, previous evaluations with machine translation have focused mostly on lexical generalization (i.e., generalization to unseen combinations of known words). Thus, it remains unclear to what extent models can translate sentences that require structural generalization (i.e., generalization to different sorts of syntactic structures). To address this question, we construct SGET, a machine translation dataset covering various types of compositional generalization with control of words and sentence structures. We evaluate neural machine translation models on SGET and show that they struggle more in structural generalization than in lexical generalization. We also find different performance trends in semantic parsing and machine translation, which indicates the importance of evaluations across various tasks.

Argument structure learning~(ASL) entails predicting relations between arguments. Because it can structure a document to facilitate its understanding, it has been widely applied in many fields~(medical, commercial, and scientific domains). Despite its broad utilization, ASL remains a challenging task because it involves examining the complex relationships between the sentences in a potentially unstructured discourse. To resolve this problem, we have developed a simple yet effective approach called Dual-tower Multi-scale cOnvolution neural Network~(DMON) for the ASL task. Specifically, we organize arguments into a relationship matrix that together with the argument embeddings forms a relationship tensor and design a mechanism to capture relations with contextual arguments. Experimental results on three different-domain argument mining datasets demonstrate that our framework outperforms state-of-the-art models. The code is available at https://github.com/VRCMF/DMON.git .

Language models are typically evaluated on their success at predicting the distribution of specific words in specific contexts. Yet linguistic knowledge also encodes relationships between contexts, allowing inferences between word distributions. We investigate the degree to which pre-trained Transformer-based large language models (LLMs) represent such relationships, focusing on the domain of argument structure. We find that LLMs perform well in generalizing the distribution of a novel noun argument between related contexts that were seen during pre-training (e.g., the active object and passive subject of the verb spray), succeeding by making use of the semantically-organized structure of the embedding space for word embeddings. However, LLMs fail at generalizations between related contexts that have not been observed during pre-training, but which instantiate more abstract, but well-attested structural generalizations (e.g., between the active object and passive subject of an arbitrary verb). Instead, in this case, LLMs show a bias to generalize based on linear order. This finding points to a limitation with current models and points to a reason for which their training is data-intensive.s reported here are available at https://github.com/clay-lab/structural-alternations.