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.
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...
arXiv:2606. 06646v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Formalizing complex reasoning from natural text is one of the central challenges in computational linguistics.
arXiv:2406. 14657v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We introduce OpenDebateEvidence, a comprehensive dataset for argument mining and summarization sourced from the American Competitive Debate community.
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...
arXiv:2609.24855v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Argumentative component detection (ACD) is a core subtask of Argument(ation) Mining (AM) and one of its most challenging aspects, as it requires join...
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%).
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 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.
arXiv:2608.29529v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Semantic alignment between specialized normative texts is challenging when equivalent requirements use different terms, syntax, and levels of abstrac...
arXiv:2607. 19201v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.
The paper introduces an expert‑annotated dataset of 42 U.S. federal tax opinions on corporate reorganizations under I.R.C. §368, marking the first tree‑structured argument corpus in this domain. Each legal passage is labeled with one of five functional categories—Rule, Analysis, Conclusion, Background Facts, and Procedural History—and can be linked into directed support trees. Experiments demonstrate that functional labels are learnable and that supervised fine‑tuning improves within‑case retrieval, though cross‑case generalization remains weak.
ARGUS is a new agent-based framework for persuasive argument generation that incorporates a Theory-of-Mind Reasoner to model audience beliefs and values. It uses a component-aware planner to break arguments into subtopics, assign rhetorical functions (logos, pathos, ethos, kairos), and guide evidence retrieval during planning. A refinement module iteratively addresses multi-dimensional weaknesses, and evaluations on three benchmarks show ARGUS outperforming strong baselines and effectively shifting resistant audience stances.