Argument Mining

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)

Legal argument mining aims to identify and classify the functional components of judicial reasoning, such as facts, issues, rules, analysis, and conclusions. Progress in this area is limited by the lack of large-scale, high-quality annotated datasets for U.S. caselaw, particularly at the state level. This paper introduces LAMUS, a sentence-level legal argument mining corpus constructed from U.S. Supreme Court decisions and Texas criminal appellate opinions. The dataset is created using a data-centric pipeline that combines large-scale case collection, LLM-based automatic annotation, and targeted human-in-the-loop quality refinement. We formulate legal argument mining as a six-class sentence classification task and evaluate multiple general-purpose and legal-domain language models under zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought prompting strategies, with LegalBERT as a supervised baseline. Results show that chain-of-thought prompting substantially improves LLM performance, while domain-specific models exhibit more stable zero-shot behavior. LLM-assisted verification corrects nearly 20% of annotation errors, improving label consistency. Human verification achieves Cohen's Kappa of 0.85, confirming annotation quality. LAMUS provides a scalable resource and empirical insights for future legal NLP research. All code and datasets can be accessed for reproducibility on GitHub at: https://github.com/LavanyaPobbathi/LAMUS/tree/main

This Guideline presents a systematic and operationalizable annotation framework for representing legal argumentation structures in judicial decisions. Grounded in theories of legal reasoning and argumentation, the framework aims to reveal the logical organization of judicial reasoning and provide a reliable foundation for computational analysis. At the element level, the Guideline distinguishes between the non-propositional layer and the propositional layer. The non-propositional layer consists of two elements: Issue and Non-argumentative Component. At the propositional level, the Guideline defines four proposition types: General Normative Judgment, Particular Normative Judgment, General Factual Judgment, and Particular Factual Judgment. At the relational level, five relation types are defined to represent argumentative structures: Support, Attack, Joint, Match, and Identity. These relations capture positive and negative argumentative connections, conjunctive reasoning structures, correspondences between legal norms and case facts, and identity or semantic equivalence between propositions. The Guideline further specifies formal representation rules and visualization conventions for both basic and nested structures, enabling consistent visualization of complex argumentation patterns. In addition, it establishes a standardized annotation workflow and consistency control mechanisms to ensure the reproducibility and reliability of annotated data. By providing a clear conceptual model, formal representation rules, and practical annotation procedures, this Guideline supports large-scale analysis of judicial reasoning and future research in legal argument mining, computational modeling of legal reasoning, and AI-assisted legal analysis.

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 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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance in analyzing and generating text, yet they struggle with explicit, transparent, and verifiable reasoning over complex texts such as those containing debates. In particular, they lack structured representations that capture how arguments support or attack each other and how their relative strengths determine overall acceptability. We encompass these limitations by proposing a framework that integrates learning-based argument mining with quantitative reasoning and ontology-based querying. Starting from a raw debate text, the framework extracts a fuzzy argumentative knowledge base, where arguments are explicitly represented as entities, linked by attack and support relations, and annotated with initial fuzzy strengths reflecting plausibility w.r.t. the debate's context. Quantitative argumentation semantics are then applied to compute final argument strengths by propagating the effects of supports and attacks. These results are then embedded into a fuzzy description logic setting, enabling expressive query answering through efficient rewriting techniques. The proposed approach provides a transparent, explainable, and formally grounded method for analyzing debates, overcoming purely statistical LLM-based analyses.

Argumentation mining comprises several subtasks, among which stance classification focuses on identifying the standpoint expressed in an argumentative text toward a specific target topic. While arguments-especially about controversial topics-often appeal to emotions, most prior work has not systematically incorporated explicit, fine-grained emotion analysis to improve performance on this task. In particular, prior research on stance classification has predominantly utilized non-argumentative texts and has been restricted to specific domains or topics, limiting generalizability. We work on five datasets from diverse domains encompassing a range of controversial topics and present an approach for expanding the Bias-Corrected NRC Emotion Lexicon using DistilBERT embeddings, which we feed into a Neural Argumentative Stance Classification model. Our method systematically expands the emotion lexicon through contextualized embeddings to identify emotionally charged terms not previously captured in the lexicon. Our expanded NRC lexicon (eNRC) improves over the baseline across all five datasets (up to +6.2 percentage points in F1 score), outperforms the original NRC on four datasets (up to +3.0), and surpasses the LLM-based approach on nearly all corpora. We provide all resources-including eNRC, the adapted corpora, and model architecture-to enable other researchers to build upon our work.

Argument mining (AM) is an interdisciplinary research field focused on the automatic identification and classification of argumentative components, such as claims and premises, and the relationships between them. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have significantly improved the performance of argument classification compared to traditional machine learning approaches. This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of several state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-5.2, Llama 4, and DeepSeek, on large publicly available argument classification corpora such as Args.me and UKP. The evaluation incorporates advanced prompting strategies, including Chain-of- Thought prompting, prompt rephrasing, voting, and certainty-based classification. Both quantitative performance metrics and qualitative error analysis are conducted to assess model behavior. The best-performing model in the study (GPT-5.2) achieves a classification accuracy of 78.0% (UKP) and 91.9% (Args.me). The use of prompt rephrasing, multi-prompt voting, and certainty estimation further improves classification performance and robustness. These techniques increase the accuracy and F1 metric of the models by typically a few percentage points (from 2% to 8%). However, qualitative analysis reveals systematic failure modes shared across models, including instabilities with respect to prompt formulation, difficulties in detecting implicit criticism, interpreting complex argument structures, and aligning arguments with specific claims. This work contributes the first comprehensive evaluation that combines quantitative benchmarking and qualitative error analysis on multiple argument mining datasets using advanced LLM prompting strategies.

Argument mining and stance detection are central to understanding how opinions are formed and contested in online discourse. However, most publicly available resources focus on mainstream platforms such as Twitter and Reddit, leaving conversational structure on alt-tech platforms comparatively under-studied. We introduce TruthStance, a large-scale dataset of Truth Social conversation threads spanning 2023-2025, consisting of 24,378 posts and 523,360 comments with reply-tree structure preserved. We provide a human-annotated benchmark of 1,500 instances across argument mining and claim-based stance detection, including inter-annotator agreement, and use it to evaluate large language model (LLM) prompting strategies. Using the best-performing configuration, we release additional LLM-generated labels for 24,352 posts (argument presence) and 107,873 comments (stance to parent), enabling analysis of stance and argumentation patterns across depth, topics, and users. All code and data are released publicly.

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.