LLMs for Argument Mining: Detection, Extraction, and Relationship Classification of pre-defined Arguments in Online Comments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.22956v1
• Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 00:29:51 GMT
• Title: LLMs for Argument Mining: Detection, Extraction, and Relationship Classification of pre-defined Arguments in Online Comments
• Abstract summary: We evaluate four state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) on three argument mining tasks.<n> Quantitative evaluation suggests an overall strong performance across the three tasks.<n>A detailed error analysis revealed systematic shortcomings on long and nuanced comments and emotionally charged language.
• Score: 11.976321200958262
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Automated large-scale analysis of public discussions around contested issues like abortion requires detecting and understanding the use of arguments. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in language processing tasks, their performance in mining topic-specific, pre-defined arguments in online comments remains underexplored. We evaluate four state-of-the-art LLMs on three argument mining tasks using datasets comprising over 2,000 opinion comments across six polarizing topics. Quantitative evaluation suggests an overall strong performance across the three tasks, especially for large and fine-tuned LLMs, albeit at a significant environmental cost. However, a detailed error analysis revealed systematic shortcomings on long and nuanced comments and emotionally charged language, raising concerns for downstream applications like content moderation or opinion analysis. Our results highlight both the promise and current limitations of LLMs for automated argument analysis in online comments.

Related papers

• Towards Emotion Consistency Analysis of Large Language Models in Emotional Conversational Contexts [41.84500687049023]
  We examine the consistency of Large Language Models (LLMs) with respect to their own generated responses in an emotionally-driven conversational context.<n>Our findings indicate that LLMs exhibit below-average performance and remain vulnerable to false beliefs embedded within queries.<n>The results raise important considerations for LLMs' deployment in high-stakes, emotionally sensitive contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T16:01:48Z)
• mSCoRe: a $M$ultilingual and Scalable Benchmark for $S$kill-based $Co$mmonsense $Re$asoning [74.97363626515236]
  We propose a textbfMultilingual and Scalable Benchmark for textbfSkill-based textbfCommonsense textbfReasoning (textbfmSCoRe)<n>Our benchmark incorporates three key components that are designed to systematically evaluate LLM's reasoning capabilities.<n>Our results reveal the limitations of such reasoning-reinforced models when confronted with nuanced multilingual general and cultural commonsense.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-13T18:59:02Z)
• A Controllable Examination for Long-Context Language Models [62.845852724511964]
  This study introduces $textbfLongBioBench, a benchmark for evaluating long-context language models.<n>We show that most models still exhibit deficiencies in semantic understanding and elementary reasoning over retrieved results.<n>Our further analysis indicates some design choices employed by existing synthetic benchmarks, such as contextual non-coherence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:23:06Z)
• Investigating the Shortcomings of LLMs in Step-by-Step Legal Reasoning [34.427730009102966]
  We develop an automated evaluation framework to identify reasoning errors and evaluate the performance of LLMs.<n>Our work will also serve as an evaluation framework that can be used in detailed error analysis of reasoning chains for logic-intensive complex tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-08T19:49:32Z)
• Calling a Spade a Heart: Gaslighting Multimodal Large Language Models via Negation [65.92001420372007]
  This paper systematically evaluates state-of-the-art MLLMs across diverse benchmarks.<n>We introduce the first benchmark GaslightingBench, specifically designed to evaluate the vulnerability of MLLMs to negation arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-31T10:37:48Z)
• Categorical Syllogisms Revisited: A Review of the Logical Reasoning Abilities of LLMs for Analyzing Categorical Syllogism [62.571419297164645]
  This paper provides a systematic overview of prior works on the logical reasoning ability of large language models for analyzing categorical syllogisms.<n>We first investigate all the possible variations for the categorical syllogisms from a purely logical perspective.<n>We then examine the underlying configurations (i.e., mood and figure) tested by the existing datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T21:17:20Z)
• Multi-LogiEval: Towards Evaluating Multi-Step Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models [46.26140720993383]
  Multi-LogiEval is a comprehensive evaluation dataset encompassing multi-step logical reasoning with various inference rules and depths. We conduct evaluations on a range of Large Language Models including GPT-4, ChatGPT, Gemini-Pro, Yi, Orca, and Mistral.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T23:02:56Z)
• SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal [64.9938658716425]
  SORRY-Bench is a proposed benchmark for evaluating large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests.<n>First, existing methods often use coarse-grained taxonomy of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics.<n>Second, linguistic characteristics and formatting of prompts are often overlooked, like different languages, dialects, and more -- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T17:56:07Z)
• Can Large Language Models Identify Authorship? [16.35265384114857]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated an exceptional capacity for reasoning and problem-solving. This work seeks to address three research questions: (1) Can LLMs perform zero-shot, end-to-end authorship verification effectively? (2) Are LLMs capable of accurately attributing authorship among multiple candidates authors (e.g., 10 and 20)?
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-13T03:22:02Z)
• Exploring the Potential of Large Language Models in Computational Argumentation [54.85665903448207]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in understanding context and generating natural language. This work aims to embark on an assessment of LLMs, such as ChatGPT, Flan models, and LLaMA2 models, in both zero-shot and few-shot settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T15:12:15Z)
• Sentiment Analysis through LLM Negotiations [58.67939611291001]
  A standard paradigm for sentiment analysis is to rely on a singular LLM and makes the decision in a single round. This paper introduces a multi-LLM negotiation framework for sentiment analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T12:35:29Z)
• Sentiment Analysis in the Era of Large Language Models: A Reality Check [69.97942065617664]
  This paper investigates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in performing various sentiment analysis tasks. We evaluate performance across 13 tasks on 26 datasets and compare the results against small language models (SLMs) trained on domain-specific datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T10:45:25Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.