A dataset of rated conceptual arguments

Argumentation skills are an essential toolkit for large language models (LLMs). These skills are crucial in various use cases, including self-reflection, debating collaboratively for diverse answers, and countering hate speech. In this paper, we create the first benchmark for a standardized evaluation of LLM-based approaches to computational argumentation, encompassing 33 datasets from previous work in unified form. Using the benchmark, we evaluate the generalizability of five LLM families across 46 computational argumentation tasks that cover mining arguments, assessing perspectives, assessing argument quality, reasoning about arguments, and generating arguments. On the benchmark, we conduct an extensive systematic analysis of the contribution of few-shot examples, reasoning steps, model size, and training skills to the performance of LLMs on the computational argumentation tasks in the benchmark.

While many studies of Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning capabilities emphasize mathematical or technical tasks, few address reasoning about social concepts: the abstract ideas shaping social norms, culture, and institutions. This understudied capability is essential for modern models acting as social agents, yet no systematic evaluation methodology targets it. We introduce SCRuB (Social Concept Reasoning under Rubric-Based Evaluation), a framework designed for this setting of task indeterminacy. Our goal is to measure the degree to which a model reasons about social concepts with the depth and critical rigor of a human expert. SCRuB proceeds in three phases: prompt construction from established sources, response generation by experts and models, and comparative evaluation using a five-dimensional critical thinking rubric. To enable generalization of the pipeline, we introduce a Panel of Disciplinary Perspectives ensemble validated against independent expert judges. We release SCRuBEval (n=4,711 evaluation prompts) and SCRuBAnnotations (300 expert-authored responses and 150 expert comparative judgments from 45 PhD-level scholars). Our results show that frontier models consistently outperform human experts across all five rubric dimensions. Across 1,170 pairwise comparisons, expert judges ranked a model response first in 80.8% of judgments and preferred model responses overall 74.4% of the time. Ultimately, this study provides the first expert-grounded demonstration of evaluation saturation for social concept reasoning: the single-turn exam-style format has reached its ceiling for models and humans alike.

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.