TruthSplit: Operationalizing Conditional Validity in Arguments Through Multi-Perspective Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.09251v1
• Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2026 09:23:57 GMT
• Title: TruthSplit: Operationalizing Conditional Validity in Arguments Through Multi-Perspective Reasoning
• Abstract summary: We present TruthSplit, an interactive system for multi-perspective argument analysis.<n>It supports an exploratory analysis of how the same claim can lead to different conclusions when interpreted through worldview-specific values, assumptions, and conceptual definitions.
• Score: 2.339913348759213
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We present TruthSplit, an interactive system for multi-perspective argument analysis. Existing argumentation tools typically analyze properties of the argument itself, such as structure, quality, stance, or persuasiveness, while leaving perspective-specific background knowledge implicit. TruthSplit addresses this gap by supporting an exploratory analysis of how the same claim can lead to different conclusions when interpreted through worldview-specific values, assumptions, and conceptual definitions. We refer to this perspective-dependent analysis as conditional validity. Given an input argumentative text, TruthSplit extracts claims and premises, applies a three-layer natural language inference (NLI) approach to assess both logical and worldview-specific normative consistency, and conditions large language model (LLM) reasoning on structured worldview profiles that encode core values and decision principles. The system then generates perspective-specific interpretations, identifies value conflicts and assumption gaps, and visualizes divergence through interactive analytical interfaces.

Related papers

• H-GRPO: Permutation-Invariant Reinforcement Learning for Grounded Visual Reasoning [14.276463740862825]
  Vision-Language Models (VLMs) often achieve high performance on benchmarks while remaining "black boxes"<n>We propose a framework designed to enhance both performance and interpretability through De-compositional Evidence Grounding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T07:51:25Z)
• CMV-Fuse: Cross Modal-View Fusion of AMR, Syntax, and Knowledge Representations for Aspect Based Sentiment Analysis [2.2972913486393707]
  CMV-Fuse is a Cross-Modal View fusion framework that emulates human language processing.<n>Our approach systematically orchestrates four linguistic perspectives.<n> CMV-Fuse captures both fine-grained structural patterns and broad contextual understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-07T06:35:46Z)
• From Perception to Cognition: A Survey of Vision-Language Interactive Reasoning in Multimodal Large Language Models [66.36007274540113]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) strive to achieve a profound, human-like understanding of and interaction with the physical world.<n>They often exhibit a shallow and incoherent integration when acquiring information (Perception) and conducting reasoning (Cognition)<n>This survey introduces a novel and unified analytical framework: From Perception to Cognition"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T18:25:40Z)
• Explain Before You Answer: A Survey on Compositional Visual Reasoning [74.27548620675748]
  Compositional visual reasoning has emerged as a key research frontier in multimodal AI.<n>This survey systematically reviews 260+ papers from top venues (CVPR, ICCV, NeurIPS, ICML, ACL, etc.)<n>We then catalog 60+ benchmarks and corresponding metrics that probe compositional visual reasoning along dimensions such as grounding accuracy, chain-of-thought faithfulness, and high-resolution perception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-24T11:01:51Z)
• Dissecting Logical Reasoning in LLMs: A Fine-Grained Evaluation and Supervision Study [40.143148197878354]
  We introduce FineLogic, a fine-grained evaluation framework that assesses logical reasoning across three dimensions.<n>We study how different supervision formats in fine-tuning shape reasoning abilities.<n>We find a key trade-off: natural language supervision excels at generalization, whereas symbolic supervision is superior at instilling structurally sound, atomic reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T09:34:12Z)
• Towards Comprehensive Argument Analysis in Education: Dataset, Tasks, and Method [14.718309497236694]
  We propose 14 fine-grained relation types from both vertical and horizontal dimensions.<n>We conduct experiments on three tasks: argument component detection, relation prediction, and automated essay grading.<n>The findings highlight the importance of fine-grained argumentative annotations for argumentative writing quality assessment and encourage multi-dimensional argument analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-17T14:36:51Z)
• From Argumentation to Deliberation: Perspectivized Stance Vectors for Fine-grained (Dis)agreement Analysis [17.184962277653902]
  We develop a framework for a deliberative analysis of arguments in a computational argumentation setup.<n>We conduct a fine-grained analysis of perspectivized stances expressed in the arguments of different arguers or stakeholders on a given issue.<n>We formalize this analysis in Perspectivized Stance Vectors that characterize the individual perspectivized stances of all arguers on a given issue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T13:08:46Z)
• A Methodology for Incompleteness-Tolerant and Modular Gradual Semantics for Argumentative Statement Graphs [15.717458041314194]
  We provide a novel methodology for obtaining Gradual semantics for statement graphs.<n>First, it naturally accommodates incomplete information, so that arguments with partially specified premises can play a meaningful role in the evaluation.<n>Second, it is modularly defined to leverage on any GS for QBAFs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T16:38:35Z)
• PAKT: Perspectivized Argumentation Knowledge Graph and Tool for Deliberation Analysis (with Supplementary Materials) [18.436817251174357]
  We propose PAKT, a Perspectivized Argumentation Knowledge Graph and Tool. The graph structures the argumentative space across diverse topics, where arguments are divided into premises and conclusions. We show how to construct PAKT and conduct case studies on the obtained multifaceted argumentation graph.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T13:47:19Z)
• 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)
• Natural Language Decompositions of Implicit Content Enable Better Text Representations [52.992875653864076]
  We introduce a method for the analysis of text that takes implicitly communicated content explicitly into account.<n>We use a large language model to produce sets of propositions that are inferentially related to the text that has been observed.<n>Our results suggest that modeling the meanings behind observed language, rather than the literal text alone, is a valuable direction for NLP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T23:45:20Z)
• Exploring Discourse Structures for Argument Impact Classification [48.909640432326654]
  This paper empirically shows that the discourse relations between two arguments along the context path are essential factors for identifying the persuasive power of an argument. We propose DisCOC to inject and fuse the sentence-level structural information with contextualized features derived from large-scale language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T06:49:19Z)
• On the Faithfulness Measurements for Model Interpretations [100.2730234575114]
  Post-hoc interpretations aim to uncover how natural language processing (NLP) models make predictions. To tackle these issues, we start with three criteria: the removal-based criterion, the sensitivity of interpretations, and the stability of interpretations. Motivated by the desideratum of these faithfulness notions, we introduce a new class of interpretation methods that adopt techniques from the adversarial domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-18T09:19:44Z)

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.