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.

Argument mining seeks to extract arguments and their structure from unstructured texts. Identifying relations between arguments (such as attack, support, and neutral) is a challenging task because two arguments may be related to each other via implicit inferences. This task often requires external commonsense knowledge to discover how one argument relates to another. State-of-the-art methods, however, rely on pre-defined knowledge graphs, and thus might not cover target argument pairs well. We introduce a new generative neuro-symbolic approach to finding inference chains that connect the argument pairs by making use of the Commonsense Transformer (COMET). We evaluate our approach on three datasets for both the two-label (attack/support) and three-label (attack/support/neutral) tasks. Our approach significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art, by 2-5% in F1 score, on all three datasets.

The ArgMining 2022 Shared Task is concerned with predicting the validity and novelty of an inference for a given premise and conclusion pair. We propose two feed-forward network based models (KEViN1 and KEViN2), which combine features generated from several pretrained transformers and the WikiData knowledge graph. The transformers are used to predict entailment and semantic similarity, while WikiData is used to provide a semantic measure between concepts in the premise-conclusion pair. Our proposed models show significant improvement over RoBERTa, with KEViN1 outperforming KEViN2 and obtaining second rank on both subtasks (A and B) of the ArgMining 2022 Shared Task.