arXiv:2405.01259v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Argumentation is an important cognitive activity that involves the scrutiny of arguments and counterarguments. When given an argument, it is desira...
arXiv:2606. 15646v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed natural language processing, but their lack of interpretable reasoning and tendency to hallucinate pose significant challenges for legal applications.
arXiv:2609.24932v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Despite the success of neural models in natural language processing, their black-box nature limits interpretability and conceals the linguistic phenome...
arXiv:2610.15091v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Argument structures represent how individual arguments interact within a discourse. However, leveraging these structures to infer meaningful knowledg...
arXiv:2609.39225v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Argument structure prediction (ASP) constructs complete argument structures from discourse by identifying argumentative units and their relations. Whil...
Despite the success of neural models in natural language processing, their black-box nature limits interpretability and conceals the linguistic phenomena underlying their predictions. We present SLITE...
The paper introduces a meta‑study that reviews state‑of‑the‑art end‑to‑end argument mining (AM) pipelines. It proposes a triple‑perspective framework—linguistic, computational, and domain—to analyze how these pipelines model, compute, and incorporate domain knowledge into argument structures. The authors also outline a general design for the linguistic and computational aspects, aiming to standardize methodology descriptions and enable clearer comparisons among AM approaches.
The paper investigates how dense embedding models can be used for stance-aware argument retrieval, a task that requires both topic relevance and correct stance (support or attack) toward a claim. Experiments reveal that current models favor topical overlap and ignore stance, and that contrastive training to fix this bias leads to over-correction, where models focus too much on polarity keywords at the expense of topic relevance. To address this, the authors propose diagnostic word-ablation metrics and a data‑centric solution involving a balanced argument curriculum and LLM‑augmented stance‑inverted arguments, which helps powerful models learn deeper directional logic and improves stance‑aware retrieval performance.
The paper introduces DNE‑ElecDeb, an enriched version of the USElecDeb dataset that annotates Debate Named Entities (DNEs) in both argumentative and non‑argumentative spans, and defines Debate Named Entity Recognition (DNER) as a new task. It proposes 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. JAET achieves significant improvements in joint AM+DNER performance (+27.3% relative F1 in the untyped setting and +41.9% in the typed setting) over sequential pipelines, and these gains generalize to Persuasive Essays (+26.6% and +52.7%).
arXiv:2607. 11891v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The deployment of large language models (LLMs) in specialized domains like medical diagnostics and financial advisory necessitates evaluating capabilities beyond general knowledge.
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...
arXiv:2608. 15325v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We propose a new framework for machine-learning-oriented argument analysis tasks.