Saadat-Yazdi, Ameer and Kökciyan, Nadin

Abstract:

In argumentation theory, argument schemes are a characterisation of stereotypical patterns of inference. There has been little work done to develop computational approaches to identify these schemes in natural language. Moreover, advancements in recognizing textual entailment lack a standardized definition of inference, which makes it challenging to compare methods trained on different datasets and rely on the generalisability of their results. In this work, we propose a rigorous approach to align entailment recognition with argumentation theory. Wagemans’ Periodic Table of Arguments (PTA), a taxonomy of argument schemes, provides the appropriate framework to unify these two fields. To operationalise the theoretical model, we introduce a tool to assist humans in annotating arguments according to the PTA. Beyond providing insights into non-expert annotator training, we present Kialo-PTA24, the first multi-topic dataset for the PTA. Finally, we benchmark the performance of pre-trained language models on various aspects of argument analysis. Our experiments show that the task of argument canonicalisation poses a significant challenge for state-of-the-art models, suggesting an inability to represent argumentative reasoning and a direction for future investigation.