Research in the computational assessment of Argumentation Quality has gained popularity over the last ten years. Various quality dimensions have been explored through the creation of domain-specific datasets and assessment methods. We survey the related literature (211 publications and 32 datasets), while addressing potential overlaps and blurry boundaries to related domains. This paper provides a representative overview of the state of the art in Computational Argument Quality Assessment with a focus on quality dimensions and annotated datasets. The aim of the survey is to identify research gaps and to aid future discussions and work in the domain.

The growing interest in named entity recognition (NER) in various domains has led to the creation of different benchmark datasets, often with slightly different annotation guidelines. To better understand the different NER benchmark datasets for the domain of English literature and their impact on the evaluation of NER tools, we analyse two existing annotated datasets and create two additional gold standard datasets. Following on from this, we evaluate the performance of two NER tools, one domain-specific and one general-purpose NER tool, using the four gold standards, and analyse the sources for the differences in the measured performance. Our results show that the performance of the two tools varies significantly depending on the gold standard used for the individual evaluations.