Overview of DialAM-2024: Argument Mining in Natural Language Dialogues

Paper · Source
Conversation Architecture and StructureArgumentation and PersuasionNLP and LinguisticsSentiment, Semantics, and Toxicity Detection

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.

Argument Mining (Lawrence and Reed, 2020) investigates the automatic extraction of argument structures from natural language inputs. The nature of argumentation, however, can be very variable depending on its context, presenting significant differences between written and spoken argumentation (Hitchcock, 2009), and between monological and dialogical argumentation (O’Keefe, 1977). Research in argument mining has mainly focused on the extraction of arguments only considering argument annotations such as premises and claims (Stab et al., 2018; Reimers et al., 2019) or attacks and supports between propositions (Hou and Jochim, 2017; Ruiz-Dolz et al., 2021; Saadat-Yazdi et al., 2023),

Inference Anchoring Theory (IAT) was proposed as an annotation framework for dialogue argumentation where not only the structure of arguments is captured, but also the speech acts and speaker intent is also annotated to support and contextualise argumentation in dialogues

This way, the two DialAM-2024 sub-tasks are defined as follows:

A. Identification of Propositional Relations. In the first task, the goal is to detect argumentative relations existing between the argumentative propositions directly extracted from the locutions uttered in the argumentative dialogues. Such relations are: Inference, Conflict, and Rephrase.

B. Identification of Illocutionary Relations. In the second task, the goal is to detect illocutonary relations existing between locutions uttered in the dialogue and the argumentative propositions associated with them including: Asserting, Agreeing, Arguing, Disagreeing, Challenging, Restating, Pure Questioning, Rhetorical Questioning, and Assertive Questioning. The final goal of the DialAM-2024 shared task is, therefore, to reconstruct graph-structured argument maps, containing locutions and argument propositions previously identified and segmented from argumentative dialogues.

Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24

Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.

Why do agents confidently report success despite actually failing tasks? How should conversational agents balance goal-driven initiative with user control? How should dialogue recommender systems manage conversation history and state? Why do language models reinforce false assumptions instead of correcting them? How should dialogue systems represent uncertainty from noisy speech input? How can language models sustain linguistic synchrony and intersubjectivity during dialogue? How does AI-generated content transformation affect public discourse quality? Why do multi-turn conversations degrade AI intent and coherence? How do training priors constrain what context information can override? Can next-token prediction alone produce genuine language understanding? Why can't humans reliably detect AI-generated text despite measurable linguistic signatures? How should models express uncertainty rather than forced confident answers? Can model confidence signals reliably improve reasoning quality and calibration? How can persona representations reduce language model variance and improve task accuracy? How do we evaluate AI systems when user perception misleads actual performance? What properties determine whether reward signals teach genuine reasoning? How can models identify insufficient information and respond appropriately without guessing? Why does self-revision increase model confidence while degrading accuracy?