Argument Mining

Argument Mining (AM) is fundamentally constrained by the scarcity of high-quality structure-annotated datasets. While LLMs have shown promise in synthetic data generation, producing synthetic AM data that is both structurally accurate and sufficiently diverse remains a challenging problem. To address this problem, we revisit synthetic data generation for AM from a new perspective and propose a novel adversarial reinforcement learning framework for data synthesis. The proposed framework jointly optimizes the generator and the discriminator in an adversarial loop, in which the generator produces structured AM instances, and the discriminator provides learning signals by distinguishing real data from synthetic candidates. This enables the generator to progressively improve both the structural accuracy of generated argument data while maintaining diversity through adversarial feedback. Extensive experiments demonstrate that the proposed framework consistently improves AM performance on three benchmark datasets in both full-data and low-resource settings, validating its effectiveness and scalability.

A large part of political discourse on social media is built and expressed at a level of claims: i.e. declarative, typically single-clause statements, which convey a particular interpretation of reality and can range from factual to evaluative. Moreover, rather than occurring randomly, claims coalesce, recur in patterns, and come to be associated with different world views. When paired with structural computational tools such as Social Network Analysis, claims can be a powerful unit of analysis to study political phenomena such as echo chambers or polarisation. In this paper, we present a pipeline that uses a large language model (LLM) to inductively extract and catalogue claims from large social media corpora, and apply it to two different Twitter datasets: one relating to the 2020 US presidential election and the other to the 2022 FIFA World Cup. We comprehensively evaluate the approach by measuring the pipeline's recall and precision against manually annotated samples, run ablation studies isolating the contribution of its various components, and perform a qualitative error analysis. We discuss the value of the approach in the context of Computational Social Science research, and illustrate its capabilities by presenting the claims catalogue obtained from each dataset.

Argument Mining (AM) is a critical NLP task that remains significantly under-resourced in Arabic. This paper presents $\testtt{STAR-Ar}$, a BERT-BiLSTM-CRF architecture for argument discourse detection and classification, as our system for Daleel 2026, the inaugural Arabic argument mining shared task. The task requires the identification and classification of argumentative discourse units (ADUs) in debate and editorial texts.We jointly model these two objectives as a token-level sequence labeling task using a BERT-BiLSTM-CRF architecture that combines contextual transformer embeddings with structural transition constraints to support accurate span detection. $\testtt{STAR-Ar}$ achieves an F1-score of 72.69 on validation and 73.7 on test data. Our domain-specific analysis shows that models trained exclusively on editorials underperform those trained on debates, a disparity we primarily attribute to the smaller size of the editorial dataset. The code for $\testtt{STAR-Ar}$ is available at ${[\faGithub~TTLab at Daleel 2026](https://github.com/ENTAILab/daleel_2026_Arabic-Argumentative-Discourse-Mining)}$

Argument Mining (AM) transforms natural language into its underlying argument structures. This transformation is typically realized through a sequence of AM tasks that form an end-to-end AM pipeline. However, AM approaches often differ in how they conceptualize these tasks, making direct comparisons between them difficult and opaque. This calls for a more nuanced, task-level analysis of AM approaches to enable clearer comparison and assessment. This work presents a preliminary meta-study that systematically reviews several state-of-the-art end-to-end AM works and analyzes their pipelines through a triple-perspective framework---a linguistic, computational and domain perspective---to understand how the pipelines model arguments as structures, computes them, and integrates domain knowledge. We further propose a general design to the linguistic and computational perspectives, illustrating how key AM tasks are designed for modeling and computation of argument structures. Our proposed framework lays the groundwork for methodology-centered descriptions across AM approaches, facilitating deeper understanding and more systematic comparisons in future research.

Legal argument mining supports passage classification, retrieval, and argument completion. This work introduces an expert-annotated dataset of 42 U.S. federal tax opinions on corporate reorganizations under I.R.C. §368. To our knowledge, it is the first expert-annotated, tree-structured argument corpus for this domain. Explicit spans receive one of five functional labels: Rule, Analysis, Conclusion, Background Facts, and Procedural History. Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion spans can be linked into directed support trees, while Background Facts and Procedural History serve a contextual function. The corpus provides span-based, sentence-based, flat, and tree-structured representations. Agreement analysis shows that functional node labels are more reliable than directed support edges and implicit intermediate conclusions. Directed-path agreement is stronger than direct-edge agreement, which indicates that broad reachability is more stable than exact local decomposition. Classification experiments show that functional labels are learnable under case-disjoint evaluation. Retrieval experiments show that supervised fine-tuning improves within-case retrieval. However, cross-case generalization remains weak. The dataset supports legal passage classification and provides a conservative benchmark for structured argument mining in U.S. federal tax case law.

Argumentative component detection (ACD) is a core subtask of Argument(ation) Mining (AM) and one of its most challenging aspects, as it requires jointly delimiting argumentative spans and classifying them into components such as claims and premises. While research on this subtask remains relatively limited compared to other AM tasks, most existing approaches formulate it as a simplified sequence labeling problem, component classification, or a pipeline of component segmentation followed by classification. In this paper, we propose ITFACD, a novel approach based on instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) using compact instruction-based prompts, and reframe ACD as a language generation task, enabling arguments to be identified directly from plain text without relying on pre-segmented components. Experiments on standard benchmarks show that our approach achieves higher performance compared to state-of-the-art systems. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first attempts to fully model ACD as a generative task, highlighting the potential of instruction tuning for complex AM problems. Our code and the datasets used are openly available in the following GitHub repository.

Health discourse in social media videos often contains densely entangled claims spanning multiple thematic aspects, stances, evidential frames, and rhetorical functions within short conversational spans. Existing approaches largely rely on coarse topic-level, sentiment-based, or stance-oriented representations that do not adequately capture this structure. Our analysis identifies an average of 13.22 atomic claims per minute, motivating richer claim-level discourse representations. We introduce a structured framework for claim-level discourse analysis in dense health narratives. Our framework models discourse through tuples linking atomic claims with thematic aspects, stance, and multidimensional pragmatic discourse attributes. To support this setting, we construct a benchmark spanning four health domains with 1,191 manually annotated claims from 60 videos. Using this framework, we evaluate automated structured discourse analysis under different discourse context settings. Results show that current LLMs achieve strong performance on thematic categorization and stance prediction, but struggle with high-dimensional pragmatic profiling. We also find that different discourse tasks benefit from different forms of contextual reasoning, suggesting that future systems may require task decomposition and specialized inference strategies.

Fallacy-detection benchmarks pair fallacy classes with a single "valid" or "none" class that takes everything data collection did not label as a fallacy. A detector has two jobs, deciding whether an argument is fallacious and naming which fallacy it commits, and the false-positive rate is meant to measure the first. We show that what these benchmarks actually score is scheme recognition, the ability behind the second job. Their own test sets already show it: when a classifier misses a fallacy, the error lands on "none" rather than on another fallacy type, so detection is failing while classification holds. The reason is what the valid class lacks. The negatives that separate the two jobs are correct arguments using the same argumentation scheme as a fallacy, and they are scarce: nearly absent from the four benchmarks we examined, and rare even under deliberate search. A detector is therefore never tested where recognizing a scheme and judging its use come apart, and can pass on recognition alone. We construct the missing arguments, together with a control condition from the same pipeline that differs only in scheme, so whatever generation contributes, it contributes to both. The classifier labels the scheme-matched negatives as the source fallacy, and labels the wrong-scheme negatives as the scheme they actually use 85.9% of the time and as the source type 0.4%. The classifier has learned which scheme an argument uses, not whether it uses it correctly. The over-flagging follows: a model that scores 16.6% on CoCoLoFa's own valid class flags 58.9% of the constructed arguments. The same dissociation appears in three zero-shot LLM detectors that never saw these benchmarks. We release the items as Scheme Foils. A reported false-positive rate should not be trusted as a measure of detection until the valid class has been audited for scheme-matched coverage.

Political debates are often analyzed through Argument Mining (AM) to investigate the key arguments that drive them. However, political arguments are rarely interpretable from argumentative spans alone, as claims and premises generally depend on the entities (e.g., people, events, locations, parties) they mention. Existing AM resources and methods typically annotate argumentative spans and roles, but do not provide a paired debate-entity layer for asking which Debate Named Entities (DNE), e.g., actors and events, are invoked within debates. In this work, we address these data and methodological gaps by (i) introducing DNE-ElecDeb, an entity-enriched version of the USElecDeb dataset that adds DNEs in both argumentative and non-argumentative spans and defines Debate Named Entity Recognition (DNER) as the task of detecting DNEs, and (ii) proposing Joint Argument and Entity Tagging (JAET), a generative framework that fine-tunes decoder-only LLMs to insert inline argument and entity tags into debate turns while preserving the original transcript. Under BIO-tagging evaluation, JAET improves relative F1 on the joint AM+DNER task by +27.3%, resp. +41.9%, under the untyped, resp. typed setting over the strongest sequential AM-DNER pipelines, demonstrating that such gains cannot be recovered by composing two independent modules. Notably, similar margins replicate on Persuasive Essays (+26.6%, resp. +52.7%), showing effective generalization to domains orthogonal to political debates. By unifying argumentative and entity-level representations within a single view, our contributions pave the way for richer political debates understanding.

Deliberation, involving the formulation and exchange of arguments, forms an integral part of political decision making in democracies. Argumentation patterns however differ substantially across different political arenas, such as plenary speeches and committee meetings. However, despite a lot of interest in argumentation, there is comparatively little computational work on analyzing differences in patterns of political argumentation between arenas. Our work addresses this research gap. First, we present a 17k-sentence corpus with annotation for argumentative passages (argument and their justifications, both their boundaries and their categories) across three German political arenas (plenary speeches, committee meetings, and press conferences), keeping the topic (COVID-19) constant. Our analysis of the corpus finds that contrary to expectations, justification by domain-specific expertise is more frequent in press conferences than in committee meetings. Second, we present a pilot study on automatically identifying such argumentative passages. The results show that boundaries are hard to pin down, and models predictions additionally suffer from confirmation bias.

Clinical NLP evaluation remains dominated by multiple-choice question answering (MCQA), which scores only final-answer accuracy and cannot detect when a model reaches the correct diagnosis while grounding it in irrelevant, absent, or contradictory evidence. We introduce MIRA-Ev, a clinical argument mining benchmark built on Spanish Médico Interno Residente (MIR) licensing-exam cases, re-annotated by expert clinicians with span-level premises, claims, and directed support/attack relations, and released in parallel Spanish (native), English, and Basque versions, the first clinical argumentation resource in Basque. MIRA-Ev organizes evaluation into a three-tier task hierarchy: evidence sentence retrieval, argumentative component extraction, and relation classification.

Policy documents shape governance outcomes, but their reasoning is often implicit. Participatory commitments and managerial control routinely coexist in the same text, and the tensions between them are rarely stated directly. Existing computational approaches to policy discourse cannot express the frame-mediated relations that drive these tensions, where one argument narrows or instrumentalizes another rather than rejecting it. End-to-end summarization by large language models produces fluent text but offers little structure that domain experts can inspect or contest. We present Apaf, a hybrid LLM--symbolic pipeline that operationalizes critical discourse analysis as a quantitative bipolar argumentation framework over policy text. Arguments are first classified into deliberative or managerial frames. Four frame-mediated relation subtypes (agency reduction, agenda shift, instrumental support, and normative support) are then produced by deterministic rules over LLM-extracted features. We release a novel dataset of 100 sub-documents of disaster-risk-reduction policy from the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia, and show that the resulting argument graphs are accurate, interpretable, and stable across jurisdictions.

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.

Bioethical debates increasingly unfold on social media, yet stance detection research lacks large-scale, domain-specific resources for modeling such context-dependent discourse. We present BioStance, a context-aware dataset of 39,600 annotated Post-Comment pairs from Reddit bioethical discussions. BioStance covers six controversial targets across three dimensions of bioethical controversy: fundamental value conflicts, individual liberty versus collective responsibility, and technological uncertainty. Each instance preserves hierarchical conversational context and is labeled by three independent annotators using a three-class stance scheme: Favor, Against, and None. The annotations achieve a mean Krippendorff's $α$ of 0.82, indicating substantial reliability. By combining thematic diversity, conversational structure, and high-quality human annotation, BioStance supports research on context-aware stance detection, argument mining, and computational analysis of bioethical discourse.

Formalizing complex reasoning from natural text is one of the central challenges in computational linguistics. It requires systems to understand not just keywords but also the context and complex reasoning embedded in a text. Current Argument Mining (AM) techniques identify basic claims and premises, yet they often struggle to capture the richer structural information required by advanced schemas such as the Carneades Argumentation Framework (CAF), which incorporates features such as premise types, proof standards, and argument schemes. We address this limitation by introducing CAF-Gen, an automated multi-agent framework designed to enrich shallow argument structures into CAF-compliant argument models. By employing an iterative Creator-Reviewer pipeline, a creator agent's output is validated by a critical agent to ensure structural integrity. This multi-agent collaboration is crucial for mitigating the structural instability typical of single-pass generative models. Our experiments demonstrate that the iterative feedback loop improves the quality of the resulting data and achieves strong alignment with the original annotations, while producing structurally richer models. Our findings show that the multi-agent system can overcome the limitations of single-pass generation, providing a robust methodology for the automated modeling of formal argumentation.

Argumentative essays serve as a vital medium for assessing critical thinking and reasoning skills, yet there is limited works on accurately understanding and evaluating such texts via prompt. In this work, we propose TIDE, a novel framework designed to improve criteria-based prompt optimization for argument-related tasks by integrating TrIal and DEbate mechanism. Our method addresses key limitations of criteria-based prompt optimizing by mitigating the influence of noisy training data and enhancing optimization stability. We evaluate TIDE on three core tasks: Automated Essay Scoring, Argument Component Detection, and Argument Relation Identification. Results demonstrate that our framework improves performance across tasks. These findings underscore the potential of combining prompt-based methods for advanced argument understanding.

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.

This work investigates whether knowledge-driven large language model (LLM)-based storytelling can support purposeful narrative interaction with a digital companion for older adults. To address known limitations of LLMs, including hallucinations and limited transparency, we present a reflective storytelling agent integrating knowledge graphs, user modelling, argumentation theory, and argument mining to guide and inspect narrative generation. The study consisted of two phases. Phase I employed participatory design involving 11 domain experts in a formative evaluation that informed iterative refinement. The resulting system generates narratives grounded in structured user models representing health-promoting activities and motivations. Phase II involved 55 older adults evaluating persona-based narratives across four prompts and two creativity levels. Participants assessed perceived purpose, usefulness, cultural relatability, and inconsistencies. The system additionally computed hallucination-risk indicators to evaluate generated narratives. Participants recognised personally relevant purposes in roughly two thirds of narratives, while argument-based purposes were identified in around half of these cases. Cultural recognisability strongly influenced willingness to use the functionality, whereas minor inconsistencies were often tolerated when narratives remained understandable and personally relevant. Narratives with higher hallucination-risk indicators were more often perceived as inconsistent, while higher argument-quality indicators tended to co-occur with higher clarity and meaningfulness ratings. Overall, the study positions argument mining as a reflective inspection mechanism for comparing formal grounding signals with human evaluations in health-oriented LLM storytelling for older adults.

Information disorder is a challenging phenomenon that affects society at large. This phenomenon entails the diffusion of misleading, misinforming, and hateful content online. In different contexts, one aspect of the problem may prevail, but overall, this is a broad problem that requires comprehensive solutions. While each dimension of the problem (hate speech, disinformation, misinformation, etc.) requires in-depth analysis, in this paper, we look into the possibility of argument structure to provide relevant information to link these different areas of the problem. In particular, we focus on the WSF-ARG+ dataset, which consists of white supremacy forum messages annotated in terms of argument structure (premises and conclusion). There, we leverage the checkworthiness and hatefulness annotations of the argument components to obtain insights into the hatefulness of the whole message. Our results show promising insights (up to 96% F1), indicating the possibility of extending this direction in the future to tackle hateful content identification and information disorder countering.

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.

The proliferation of online debate platforms and social media has led to an unprecedented volume of argumentative content on controversial topics from multiple perspectives. While this wealth of perspectives offers opportunities for developing critical thinking and breaking filter bubbles (Pariser 2011), the sheer volume and complexity of arguments make it challenging for readers to synthesize and comprehend diverse viewpoints effectively. We present an unsupervised graph-based approach for community-based argument organization that helps users navigate and understand complex argumentative landscapes. Our system analyzes collections of topic-focused articles and constructs a rich interaction graph by capturing multiple relationship types between arguments: topic similarity, semantic coherence, shared keywords, and common entities. We then employ community detection to identify argument communities that reveal homogeneous and heterogeneous viewpoint distributions. The detected communities are simplified through strategic graph operations to present users with digestible, yet comprehensive summaries of key argumentative patterns. Our approach requires no training data and can effectively process hundreds of articles while preserving nuanced relationships between arguments. Experimental results demonstrate our system's ability to identify meaningful argument communities and present them in an interpretable manner, facilitating users' understanding of complex socio-political debates.

The increasing amount of political debates and politics-related discussions calls for the definition of novel computational methods to automatically analyse such content with the final goal of lightening up political deliberation to citizens. However, the specificity of the political language and the argumentative form of these debates (employing hidden communication strategies and leveraging implicit arguments) make this task very challenging, even for current general-purpose pre-trained Language Models (PLMs). To address this, we introduce a novel PLM for political discourse language called RooseBERT. Pre-training a language model on a specialised domain presents different technical and linguistic challenges, requiring extensive computational resources and large-scale data. RooseBERT has been trained on large political debate and speech corpora (11GB) in English. To evaluate its performances, we fine-tuned it on multiple downstream tasks related to political debate analysis, i.e., stance detection, sentiment analysis, argument component detection and classification, argument relation prediction and classification, policy classification, named entity recognition (NER). Our results show improvements over general-purpose PLMs on the majority of these tasks, highlighting how domain-specific pre-training enhances performance in political debate analysis. We release RooseBERT for the research community: https://huggingface.co/collections/MARIANNE-INRIA/roosebert.