OmouAI is an interactive deliberation system that combines large language models with computational argumentation to facilitate policy debates involving humans and simulated personas such as stakeholders, experts, or devil’s advocates. Each persona generates its own arguments, which are assembled into a shared argumentation framework that users can contest, add to, or revise, ensuring human oversight. The system evaluates arguments using deterministic argumentative semantics against external goals like the UN Sustainable Development Goals, providing faithful explanations and indicating how policy recommendations affect those goals.
By Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Antonio Rago, William Yeoh, Georgina Curto
arXiv:2608.21385v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Social media has become a central arena in which armed conflicts are contested, yet the pro-Israel and pro-Palestine communities on Telegram, whose b...
By Michail Zafeiropoulos, Despoina Antonakaki, Sotiris Ioannidis
arXiv:2608. 06123v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Measuring political bias in large language models (LLMs) remains challenging as it can manifest through subtle differences in framing, argumentation, and legal reasoning that are difficult to capture with a single metric.
By Massi-Nissa Abboud, Aladin Djuhera, Elena Cabrio, Holger Boche
arXiv:2607. 13260v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Policy documents shape governance outcomes, but their reasoning is often implicit.
By Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Olga Derendiaeva
The paper examines how large language models resolve conflicts that arise within contextual knowledge, rather than between internal knowledge and external context. It introduces a taxonomy of six contextual conflict types and presents the ContextConflict dataset with 5,781 samples covering reasoning and summarization tasks. Experiments on nine LLMs reveal persistent shortcomings in conflict resolution, uncover a bias toward earlier evidence, and propose a training‑free steering method that improves accuracy and summary quality.
The paper introduces a taxonomy of six types of contextual knowledge conflicts—factual, inferential, temporal, granularity, perspective, and ambiguity—and presents the ContextConflict dataset with 5,781 samples covering reasoning and summarization tasks. Experiments on nine large language models reveal that current models struggle to resolve these conflicts, exhibit a bias toward earlier evidence, and show latent awareness of conflicts in their internal representations. The authors propose a training‑free, label‑free steering method that adjusts activations to better incorporate evidence, consistently improving reasoning accuracy and producing higher‑quality, balanced summaries on the dataset.
By Xinye Yang, Zhenyang Liu, Ruisi Li, Yuanyuan Lei
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...
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%).
By Lucio La Cava, Stefano Francesco Monea, Sergio Greco
arXiv:2609.38799v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Understanding multi-perspective alternative narratives requires identifying how their information agrees, conflicts, or differs across sources. Existin...
By Eftekhar Hossain, Santu Karmaker
arXiv:2405. 17838v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Socio-linguistic indicators of affectively-relevant phenomena, such as emotion or sentiment, are often extracted from text to better understand features of human-computer interactions, including on social media.
By Keith Burghardt, Daniel M. T. Fessler, Chyna Tang, Anne Pisor, Kristina Lerman
arXiv:2606.12186v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Enthymemes, arguments with unstated premises or conclusions, are pervasive in persuasive discourse, yet their annotation remains notoriously subjec...
By Martial Pastor, Nelleke Oostdijk
Enthymemes, arguments with unstated premises or conclusions, are pervasive in persuasive discourse, yet their annotation remains notoriously subjective. We present a resource of 1,482 tweets from politically controversial discourse, annotated by five annotators for the presence of enthymemes and their argument structure, designed to study label variation.