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.

Can post-hoc execution traces provide sufficient accountability without real-time oversight? How do dialogue structure and state management affect multi-turn reasoning quality? What conversational structures and patterns determine dialogue effectiveness and coherence? What reasoning limitations and biases do language models systematically exhibit? Does learning articulatory physics explain speech communication superiority? Can prompts override training-embedded biases in language models? How can models learn to ask clarifying questions effectively? What conversation mechanics enable genuine human-AI communicative participation? What factors determine AI persuasion effectiveness and what controls mitigate it? When do additional thinking tokens stop improving reasoning performance? Can we reliably distinguish AI-generated from human-written text? What systematic failures occur in human preference-based model evaluation? Can persona prompting reliably change how language models behave? Why do human-AI teams underperform compared to their individual components? Do language models learn underlying linguistic structure or merely surface patterns? How do mechanistic features and representations drive model behavior? Why does self-revision increase model confidence despite degraded accuracy?