Towards Robust Argumentative Essay Understanding via TIDE: An Interactive Framework with Trial and Debate

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.17247v1
• Date: Sun, 17 May 2026 04:10:36 GMT
• Title: Towards Robust Argumentative Essay Understanding via TIDE: An Interactive Framework with Trial and Debate
• Abstract summary: We propose TIDE, a novel framework designed to improve criteria-based prompt optimization for argument-related tasks.<n>Our method addresses key limitations of criteria-based prompt optimizing by mitigating the influence of noisy training data.<n>Results demonstrate that our framework improves performance across tasks.
• Score: 10.157878868051414
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Argumentative essays serve as a vital medium for assessing critical thinking and reasoning skills, yet there is limited works on accurately understanding and evaluating such texts via prompt. In this work, we propose TIDE, a novel framework designed to improve criteria-based prompt optimization for argument-related tasks by integrating TrIal and DEbate mechanism. Our method addresses key limitations of criteria-based prompt optimizing by mitigating the influence of noisy training data and enhancing optimization stability. We evaluate TIDE on three core tasks: Automated Essay Scoring, Argument Component Detection, and Argument Relation Identification. Results demonstrate that our framework improves performance across tasks. These findings underscore the potential of combining prompt-based methods for advanced argument understanding.

Related papers

• Beyond Rating: A Comprehensive Evaluation and Benchmark for AI Reviews [69.66583722746904]
  We introduce Beyond Rating, a holistic evaluation framework that assesses AI reviewers across five dimensions.<n>We propose a Max-Recall strategy to accommodate valid expert disagreement and introduce a curated dataset of paper with high-confidence reviews.<n>Our proposed text-centric metrics--particularly the recall of weakness arguments--correlate strongly with rating accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T14:21:15Z)
• Understanding Textual Capability Degradation in Speech LLMs via Parameter Importance Analysis [54.53152524778821]
  integration of speech into Large Language Models (LLMs) has substantially expanded their capabilities, but often at the cost of weakening their core textual competence.<n>We propose an analytical framework based on parameter importance estimation, which reveals that fine-tuning for speech introduces a textual importance distribution shift.<n>We investigate two mitigation strategies: layer-wise learning rate scheduling and Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA)<n> Experimental results show that both approaches better maintain textual competence than full fine-tuning, while also improving downstream spoken question answering performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-28T09:04:40Z)
• Implicit Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Survey [67.53966514728383]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong generalization across a wide range of tasks.<n>Recent studies have shifted attention from explicit chain-of-thought prompting toward implicit reasoning.<n>This survey introduces a taxonomy centered on execution paradigms, shifting the focus from representational forms to computational strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-02T14:16:02Z)
• PixelThink: Towards Efficient Chain-of-Pixel Reasoning [70.32510083790069]
  PixelThink is a simple yet effective scheme that integrates externally estimated task difficulty and internally measured model uncertainty.<n>It learns to compress reasoning length in accordance with scene complexity and predictive confidence.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed approach improves both reasoning efficiency and overall segmentation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T17:55:49Z)
• Measurement to Meaning: A Validity-Centered Framework for AI Evaluation [12.55408229639344]
  We provide a structured approach for reasoning about the types of evaluative claims that can be made given the available evidence.<n>Our framework is well-suited for the contemporary paradigm in machine learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-13T20:36:22Z)
• Why Reasoning Matters? A Survey of Advancements in Multimodal Reasoning (v1) [66.51642638034822]
  Reasoning is central to human intelligence, enabling structured problem-solving across diverse tasks.<n>Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have greatly enhanced their reasoning abilities in arithmetic, commonsense, and symbolic domains.<n>This paper offers a concise yet insightful overview of reasoning techniques in both textual and multimodal LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-04T04:04:56Z)
• Q-STRUM Debate: Query-Driven Contrastive Summarization for Recommendation Comparison [20.77853620249543]
  We introduce Q-STRUM Debate, a novel extension of STRUM-LLM that employs debate-style prompting to generate focused and contrastive summarizations of item aspects relevant to a query.<n> Experiments across three datasets demonstrate that Q-STRUM Debate yields significant performance improvements over existing methods on key contrastive summarization criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T15:01:30Z)
• Adaptive Prompting: Ad-hoc Prompt Composition for Social Bias Detection [30.836788377666]
  We propose an adaptive prompting approach that predicts the optimal prompt composition ad-hoc for a given input.<n>We apply our approach to social bias detection, a highly context-dependent task that requires semantic understanding.<n>Our approach robustly ensures high detection performance, and is best in several settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T14:06:19Z)
• Think Beyond Size: Adaptive Prompting for More Effective Reasoning [0.0]
  We introduce Adaptive Prompting, a dynamic and iterative framework designed to enhance reasoning by incorporating real-time adjustments to prompt structures and validation mechanisms.<n>Results demonstrate that Adaptive Prompting significantly improves performance on diverse reasoning benchmarks, including arithmetic reasoning (GSM8K, MultiArithm), logical reasoning and commonsense tasks.<n>Our approach enables smaller models to achieve competitive performance with larger counterparts, such as GPT-4, while maintaining computational efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:14:36Z)
• Argument Quality Assessment in the Age of Instruction-Following Large Language Models [45.832808321166844]
  A critical task in any such application is the assessment of an argument's quality. We identify the diversity of quality notions and the subjectiveness of their perception as the main hurdles towards substantial progress on argument quality assessment. We argue that the capabilities of instruction-following large language models (LLMs) to leverage knowledge across contexts enable a much more reliable assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-24T10:43:21Z)
• 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)
• Rationale-Augmented Ensembles in Language Models [53.45015291520658]
  We reconsider rationale-augmented prompting for few-shot in-context learning. We identify rationale sampling in the output space as the key component to robustly improve performance. We demonstrate that rationale-augmented ensembles achieve more accurate and interpretable results than existing prompting approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-02T06:20:57Z)

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.