Argument Quality Assessment with Large Language Models: A Pairwise Bradley-Terry Approach

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28313v1
• Date: Wed, 27 May 2026 11:14:37 GMT
• Title: Argument Quality Assessment with Large Language Models: A Pairwise Bradley-Terry Approach
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in tasks related to reasoning and judgment.<n>We tested 12 open-weight LLMs of different sizes and families under zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought.<n>Our insights show that LLMs have promising but moderate correlation with human expert judgments.
• Score: 3.0068578527945866
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in tasks related to reasoning and judgment. However, assessing the quality of arguments requires a rigorous evaluation. We investigate the extent to which LLMs can effectively perform this task. We tested 12 open-weight LLMs of different sizes and families under zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought to approximate expert pairwise comparisons of argument quality across three dimensions-logical, rhetorical, and dialectic-and used these comparisons in a Bradley-Terry model to infer latent strength scores and derive a ranking of arguments. Our insights show that LLMs have promising but moderate correlation with human expert judgments, with Llama-70B obtaining the strongest alignment, reaching moderate Cohen's $κ$ = 0.493 and moderate correlations with Bradley-Terry scores derived from these annotations (Kendall, Pearson, and Spearman: 0.327-0.477). Other LLMs exhibit weak, moderate, or high alignment with Llama-70B while achieving comparable results against human experts, suggesting partial but complementary understanding of underlying quality dimensions despite differences in model size and family. Moreover, LLM predictions are stable across trial runs, with fewer than 7.75\% of cases yielding different labels. Remaining variability is handled via majority voting and few-shot prompting for large-size models.

Related papers

• OpenDeepThink: Parallel Reasoning via Bradley-Terry Aggregation [53.88666485159289]
  We introduce OpenDeepThink, a population-based test-time compute framework that selects via pairwise Bradley-Terry comparison.<n>OpenDeepThink raises Gemini 3.1 Pro's effective Codeforces Elo by +405 points in eight sequential LLM-call rounds.<n>We release CF-73, a curated set of 73 expert-rated Codeforces problems with International Grandmaster annotation and 99% local-evaluation agreement against the official verdict.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-14T17:57:40Z)
• Blind to the Human Touch: Overlap Bias in LLM-Based Summary Evaluation [89.52571224447111]
  Large language model (LLM) judges have often been used alongside traditional, algorithm-based metrics for tasks like summarization.<n>We provide an LLM judge bias analysis as a function of overlap with human-written responses in the domain of summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-07T19:39:28Z)
• Evaluating & Reducing Deceptive Dialogue From Language Models with Multi-turn RL [64.3268313484078]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) interact with millions of people worldwide in applications such as customer support, education and healthcare.<n>Their ability to produce deceptive outputs, whether intentionally or inadvertently, poses significant safety concerns.<n>We investigate the extent to which LLMs engage in deception within dialogue, and propose the belief misalignment metric to quantify deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T05:29:36Z)
• Bridging Human and LLM Judgments: Understanding and Narrowing the Gap [39.90675202514829]
  Large language models are increasingly used as judges (LLM-as-a-judge) to evaluate model outputs at scale.<n>We present Bridge, a unified statistical framework that explicitly bridges human and LLM evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-18T10:14:20Z)
• GLIDER: Grading LLM Interactions and Decisions using Explainable Ranking [0.9614204956530676]
  We introduce GLIDER, a powerful 3B evaluator LLM that can score any text input and associated context on arbitrary user defined criteria.<n>GLIDER shows higher Pearson's correlation than GPT-4o on FLASK and greatly outperforms prior evaluation models.<n>It supports fine-grained scoring, multilingual reasoning, span highlighting and was trained on 685 domains and 183 criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T18:41:12Z)
• Robots in the Middle: Evaluating LLMs in Dispute Resolution [0.0]
  We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) are able to analyze dispute conversations, select suitable intervention types, and generate appropriate intervention messages. Our results demonstrate the potential of integrating AI in online dispute resolution (ODR) platforms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T16:51:10Z)
• WikiContradict: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Real-World Knowledge Conflicts from Wikipedia [59.96425443250666]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising solution to mitigate the limitations of large language models (LLMs) In this work, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of LLM-generated answers to questions based on contradictory passages from Wikipedia. We benchmark a diverse range of both closed and open-source LLMs under different QA scenarios, including RAG with a single passage, and RAG with 2 contradictory passages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T20:13:42Z)
• Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judges [6.609843448260634]
  The LLM-as-a-judge paradigm is rapidly gaining traction as an approach to evaluating large language models.<n>This paper focuses on a clean scenario in which inter-human agreement is high.<n>We identify vulnerabilities in judge models, such as their sensitivity to prompt complexity and length, and a tendency toward leniency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T13:49:54Z)
• "Knowing When You Don't Know": A Multilingual Relevance Assessment Dataset for Robust Retrieval-Augmented Generation [90.09260023184932]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds Large Language Model (LLM) output by leveraging external knowledge sources to reduce factual hallucinations. NoMIRACL is a human-annotated dataset for evaluating LLM robustness in RAG across 18 typologically diverse languages. We measure relevance assessment using: (i) hallucination rate, measuring model tendency to hallucinate, when the answer is not present in passages in the non-relevant subset, and (ii) error rate, measuring model inaccuracy to recognize relevant passages in the relevant subset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-18T17:18:04Z)
• Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarization [79.37850439866938]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for automatic summarization but the reasons behind their successes are poorly understood. We find instruction tuning, and not model size, is the key to the LLM's zero-shot summarization capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-31T18:46:19Z)

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.