ArgBench: Benchmarking LLMs on Computational Argumentation Tasks
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.17366v1
- Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2026 10:23:41 GMT
- Title: ArgBench: Benchmarking LLMs on Computational Argumentation Tasks
- Abstract summary: Argumentation skills are an essential toolkit for large language models (LLMs)<n>We create the first benchmark for a standardized evaluation of LLM-based approaches to computational argumentation.
- Score: 25.924152913253902
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Argumentation skills are an essential toolkit for large language models (LLMs). These skills are crucial in various use cases, including self-reflection, debating collaboratively for diverse answers, and countering hate speech. In this paper, we create the first benchmark for a standardized evaluation of LLM-based approaches to computational argumentation, encompassing 33 datasets from previous work in unified form. Using the benchmark, we evaluate the generalizability of five LLM families across 46 computational argumentation tasks that cover mining arguments, assessing perspectives, assessing argument quality, reasoning about arguments, and generating arguments. On the benchmark, we conduct an extensive systematic analysis of the contribution of few-shot examples, reasoning steps, model size, and training skills to the performance of LLMs on the computational argumentation tasks in the benchmark.
Related papers
- IDA-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Interactive Guided Data Analysis [60.32962597618861]
IDA-Bench is a novel benchmark evaluating large language models in multi-round interactive scenarios.<n>Agent performance is judged by comparing its final numerical output to the human-derived baseline.<n>Even state-of-the-art coding agents (like Claude-3.7-thinking) succeed on 50% of the tasks, highlighting limitations not evident in single-turn tests.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-05-23T09:37:52Z) - VisuLogic: A Benchmark for Evaluating Visual Reasoning in Multi-modal Large Language Models [121.03333569013148]
We introduce VisuLogic: a benchmark of 1,000 human-verified problems across six categories.<n>These types of questions can be evaluated to assess the visual reasoning capabilities of MLLMs from multiple perspectives.<n>Most models score below 30% accuracy-only slightly above the 25% random baseline and far below the 51.4% achieved by humans.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-04-21T17:59:53Z) - Argument Summarization and its Evaluation in the Era of Large Language Models [21.212217094789647]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized various Natural Language Generation (NLG) tasks.<n>This paper investigates the integration of state-of-the-art LLMs into ArgSum systems and their evaluation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-03-02T10:49:10Z) - CARL-GT: Evaluating Causal Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [18.975064947089805]
Causal reasoning capabilities are essential for large language models (LLMs) in a wide range of applications, such as education and healthcare.<n>We provide a benchmark, named by CARL-GT, which evaluates CAusal Reasoning capabilities of large Language models using Graphs and Tabular data.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-12-23T20:34:32Z) - Argumentation Computation with Large Language Models : A Benchmark Study [6.0682923348298194]
Large language models (LLMs) have made significant advancements in neuro-symbolic computing.<n>We aim to investigate the capability of LLMs in determining the extensions of various abstract argumentation semantics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-12-21T18:23:06Z) - TaskEval: Assessing Difficulty of Code Generation Tasks for Large Language Models [7.3673614578648285]
Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in code-related tasks like code generation, but benchmark evaluations often overlook task characteristics, such as difficulty.<n>This paper introduces a framework using diverse prompts and Item Response Theory (IRT) to efficiently assess LLMs' capabilities and benchmark task characteristics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-30T22:31:19Z) - LogicAsker: Evaluating and Improving the Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models [63.14196038655506]
We introduce LogicAsker, a novel approach for evaluating and enhancing the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)
Our methodology reveals significant gaps in LLMs' learning of logical rules, with identified reasoning failures ranging from 29% to 90% across different models.
We leverage these findings to construct targeted demonstration examples and fine-tune data, notably enhancing logical reasoning in models like GPT-4o by up to 5%.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-01T13:53:53Z) - CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark.
In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship.
We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z) - InfiMM-Eval: Complex Open-Ended Reasoning Evaluation For Multi-Modal
Large Language Models [50.03163753638256]
Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly prominent in the field of artificial intelligence.
Our benchmark comprises three key reasoning categories: deductive, abductive, and analogical reasoning.
We evaluate a selection of representative MLLMs using this rigorously developed open-ended multi-step elaborate reasoning benchmark.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-20T07:06:31Z) - 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)
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.