An LLM-Based System for Argument Mining

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.13793v2
• Date: Tue, 19 May 2026 13:49:59 GMT
• Title: An LLM-Based System for Argument Mining
• Abstract summary: We present an end-to-end large language model (LLM)-based system for reconstructing arguments from natural language text into abstract argument graphs.<n>The system follows a multi-stage pipeline that progressively identifies argumentative components, selects relevant elements, and uncovers their logical relations.<n>Results show that the system can adequately recover argumentative structures and, when adapted to different annotation schemes, achieve reasonable performance across benchmark datasets.
• Score: 0.03499870393443267
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Arguments are a fundamental aspect of human reasoning, in which claims are supported, challenged, and weighed against one another. We present an end-to-end large language model (LLM)-based system for reconstructing arguments from natural language text into abstract argument graphs. The system follows a multi-stage pipeline that progressively identifies argumentative components, selects relevant elements, and uncovers their logical relations. These elements are represented as directed acyclic graphs consisting of two component types (premises and conclusions) and three relation types (support, attack, and undercut). We conduct two complementary experiments to evaluate the system. First, we perform a manual evaluation on arguments drawn from an argumentation theory textbook to assess the system's ability to recover argumentative structure. Second, we conduct a quantitative evaluation on benchmark datasets, allowing comparison with prior work by mapping our outputs to established annotation schemes. Results show that the system can adequately recover argumentative structures and, when adapted to different annotation schemes, achieve reasonable performance across benchmark datasets. These findings highlight the potential of LLM-based pipelines for scalable argument mining.

Related papers

• RepoReasoner: Evaluating Repository-Level Code Reasoning Ability of Long-Context Language Models [54.53236295237077]
  We introduce RepoReasoner, a benchmark for evaluating repository-level code reasoning.<n> Output Prediction measures fine-grained, stateful execution reasoning across files.<n>Call Chain Prediction evaluates high-level architectural dependency understanding under noisy context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-28T17:12:41Z)
• MuTSE: A Human-in-the-Loop Multi-use Text Simplification Evaluator [0.13048920509133807]
  textbfMuTSEfootnote is an interactive human-in-the-loop web application designed to streamline the evaluation of Large Language Models.<n>The system supports concurrent execution of $P times M$ prompt-model permutations, generating a comprehensive comparison matrix in real-time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-10T04:31:43Z)
• Argument Reconstruction as Supervision for Critical Thinking in LLMs [47.26477494850773]
  We propose an engine that automatically reconstructs arbitrary arguments (GAAR)<n>We synthesize a new high-quality argument reconstruction dataset (Arguinas) using the GAAR engine.<n>Our experimental results show that, across seven critical thinking tasks, models trained to learn argument reconstruction outperform models that do not.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-18T07:17:54Z)
• LLM-based Argument Mining meets Argumentation and Description Logics: a Unified Framework for Reasoning about Debates [18.314315278861073]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance in analyzing and generating text.<n>They struggle with explicit, transparent, and verifiable reasoning over complex texts such as those containing debates.<n>We propose a framework that integrates learning-based argument mining with quantitative reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T11:06:23Z)
• DivLogicEval: A Framework for Benchmarking Logical Reasoning Evaluation in Large Language Models [58.439517684779936]
  This paper proposes a new classical logic benchmark DivLogicEval, consisting of natural sentences composed of diverse statements in a counterintuitive way.<n>To ensure a more reliable evaluation, we also introduce a new evaluation metric that mitigates the influence of bias and randomness inherent in Large Language Models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-19T04:40:46Z)
• CLATTER: Comprehensive Entailment Reasoning for Hallucination Detection [60.98964268961243]
  We propose that guiding models to perform a systematic and comprehensive reasoning process allows models to execute much finer-grained and accurate entailment decisions.<n>We define a 3-step reasoning process, consisting of (i) claim decomposition, (ii) sub-claim attribution and entailment classification, and (iii) aggregated classification, showing that such guided reasoning indeed yields improved hallucination detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T17:02:52Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [47.84663434179473]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way.<n>Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• Modeling Hierarchical Reasoning Chains by Linking Discourse Units and Key Phrases for Reading Comprehension [80.99865844249106]
  We propose a holistic graph network (HGN) which deals with context at both discourse level and word level, as the basis for logical reasoning. Specifically, node-level and type-level relations, which can be interpreted as bridges in the reasoning process, are modeled by a hierarchical interaction mechanism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-21T07:34:27Z)
• Evaluating Step-by-Step Reasoning through Symbolic Verification [20.156768135017007]
  Pre-trained language models (LMs) have shown remarkable reasoning performance for in-context learning. LMLP enjoys more than $25%$ higher accuracy than chain-of-thoughts (CoT) on length generalization benchmarks even with smaller model sizes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-16T19:30:01Z)
• Argumentative Explanations for Pattern-Based Text Classifiers [15.81939090849456]
  We focus on explanations for a specific interpretable model, namely pattern-based logistic regression (PLR) for binary text classification. We propose AXPLR, a novel explanation method using (forms of) computational argumentation to generate explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-22T21:16:49Z)
• A Formalisation of Abstract Argumentation in Higher-Order Logic [77.34726150561087]
  We present an approach for representing abstract argumentation frameworks based on an encoding into classical higher-order logic. This provides a uniform framework for computer-assisted assessment of abstract argumentation frameworks using interactive and automated reasoning tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T10:45:59Z)
• Towards an Argument Mining Pipeline Transforming Texts to Argument Graphs [7.819876182082904]
  We present an argument mining pipeline as a universally applicable approach for transforming German and English language texts to graph-based argument representations. Our results show that the generated argument graphs can be beneficial to detect new connections between different statements of an argumentative text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-08T13:10:19Z)

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.