ArgBench: Benchmarking LLMs on Computational Argumentation Tasks

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in tasks related to reasoning and judgment. However, assessing the quality of arguments requires a rigorous evaluation. We investigate the extent to which LLMs can effectively perform this task. We tested 12 open-weight LLMs of different sizes and families under zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought to approximate human pairwise comparisons of argument quality across three dimensions--logical, rhetorical, and dialectic--and used these comparisons in a Bradley-Terry model to infer latent strength scores and derive a ranking of arguments. Our insights show that LLMs have promising but moderate correlation with human judgment, with Llama-70B obtaining the strongest alignment, reaching moderate Cohen's $κ$ = 0.493 and moderate correlations with Bradley-Terry scores derived from these annotations (Kendall, Pearson, and Spearman: 0.327-0.477). Other LLMs exhibit weak, moderate, or high alignment with Llama-70B while achieving comparable results against human judgment, suggesting partial but complementary understanding of underlying quality dimensions despite differences in model size and family. Moreover, LLM predictions are stable across trial runs, with fewer than 7.75% of cases yielding different labels. Remaining variability is handled via majority voting and few-shot prompting for large-size models.

Arguments are a fundamental aspect of human reasoning, in which claims are supported, challenged, and weighed against one another. We present an end-to-end large language model (LLM)-based system for reconstructing arguments from natural language text into abstract argument graphs. The system follows a multi-stage pipeline that progressively identifies argumentative components, selects relevant elements, and uncovers their logical relations. These elements are represented as directed acyclic graphs consisting of two component types (premises and conclusions) and three relation types (support, attack, and undercut). We conduct two complementary experiments to evaluate the system. First, we perform a manual evaluation on arguments drawn from an argumentation theory textbook to assess the system's ability to recover argumentative structure. Second, we conduct a quantitative evaluation on benchmark datasets, allowing comparison with prior work by mapping our outputs to established annotation schemes. Results show that the system can adequately recover argumentative structures and, when adapted to different annotation schemes, achieve reasonable performance across benchmark datasets. These findings highlight the potential of LLM-based pipelines for scalable argument mining.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly assessed and utilized in the field of Argument Mining (AM), thanks to their strong general reasoning capabilities. However, standard training-free models often miss sophisticated details, specifically in contexts where two parts of the text have to be analyzed together. Furthermore, self-correction mechanisms tend to reinforce initial hallucinations in reasoning. Overcoming these limitations typically requires expensive, domain-specific supervised fine-tuning. Recent work has shown that a multi-agent paradigm can address such weaknesses for the component classification task through dialectical refinement with a Proponent-Opponent-Judge architecture, setting a promising direction for training-free approaches in the field. In this paper, we extend and evaluate this framework on the Argument Relation Identification and Classification (ARIC) task, reformulating it as a debate over component pairs. Besides that, we introduce a confidence gating mechanism that enables debating only on the uncertain cases and accepting the initial prediction when confidence is high. On the UKP Argument Annotated Essays v2 corpus, we demonstrate that the selective debate achieves the highest Macro F1 among all training-free methods, while debate over all samples degrades performance below that of one of the baselines. All generative approaches also outperform fine-tuned RoBERTa models on Macro F1, suggesting that the under-representation of the Attack class was more damaging to supervised fine-tuning than to inference-only models. Additionally, our framework produces human-readable debate transcripts, offering interpretability absent from both single-agent and supervised classifiers.