Towards Full-Text Scholarly Argument Mining using Entity-Anchored Claim Extraction

Argument Mining(AM) aims to uncover the argumentative structures within a text. Previous methods require several subtasks, such as span identification, component classification, and relation classification. Consequently, these methods need rule-based postprocessing to derive argumentative structures from the output of each subtask. This approach adds to the complexity of the model and expands the search space of the hyperparameters. To address this difficulty, we propose a simple yet strong method based on a text-to-text generation approach using a pretrained encoder-decoder language model. Our method simultaneously generates argumentatively annotated text for spans, components, and relations, eliminating the need for task-specific postprocessing and hyperparameter tuning. Furthermore, because it is a straightforward text-to-text generation method, we can easily adapt our approach to various types of argumentative structures. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, as it achieves state-of-the-art performance on three different types of benchmark datasets: the Argument-annotated Essays Corpus(AAEC), AbstRCT, and the Cornell eRulemaking Corpus(CDCP)

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.

Scientific papers advance $\textit{claims}$ that later work supports, extends, or sometimes refutes. Yet existing methods for citation and claim analysis capture only fragments of this dialogue. In this work, we make these interactions explicit at the level of individual scientific claims. We introduce $\texttt{ClaimFlow}$, a claim-centric view of the NLP literature, built from $1{,}617$ ACL Anthology papers $(1979 - 2025)$ that are manually annotated with $5{,}689$ claims and $4{,}871$ cross-paper claim relations, indicating whether a citing paper $\texttt{supports}$, $\texttt{extends}$, $\texttt{qualifies}$, $\texttt{refutes}$, or references a cited claim as $\texttt{background}$. Building on $\texttt{ClaimFlow}$, we define a new task -- $\textit{Claim Relation Classification}$ -- which requires models to infer the scientific stance toward a cited claim from the text and citation context. Evaluating neural models and large language models on this task, we report baseline performance of $0.81$ macro-F1, suggesting that the task is tractable while leaving room for improvement. We then scale this framework to \sim$$13k NLP papers to study claim evolution across decades of NLP research. We show that $63.5\%$ claims are never reused; only $11.1\%$ are ever challenged. Widely propagated claims are more often $\textit{reshaped}$ through qualification and extension than supported or refuted. Overall, $\texttt{ClaimFlow}$ offers a lens for examining how ideas shift and mature within NLP.