Embedding Models for Stance-Aware Argument Retrieval

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28283v1
• Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:47:45 GMT
• Title: Embedding Models for Stance-Aware Argument Retrieval
• Abstract summary: We show how dense embedding models (hereafter, models) can serve as the basis of semantic search incorporating this dual assessment.<n>We show experimentally that existing models struggle with asymmetric reasoning, exhibiting a strong bias toward topical overlap while ignoring instructional stance.<n>We thus introduce diagnostic word-ablation metrics to quantify this phenomenon and propose a data-centric solution.
• Score: 16.736290000291188
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In computational argumentation, obtaining arguments that explicitly support or attack given claims is a critical precursor to downstream reasoning tasks. When these supporting and attacking arguments are to be retrieved using semantic search methods, they need to be assessed for topic-relevance to the claims of interest as well as for correctness of their (positive or negative) stance towards the claims. In this paper we explore how dense embedding models (hereafter, models), powering modern retrieval pipelines, can serve as the basis of semantic search incorporating this dual assessment. We show experimentally that existing models struggle with asymmetric reasoning, exhibiting a strong bias toward topical overlap while ignoring instructional stance. We also show that correcting this bias via contrastive training triggers a new failure mode where models over-correct, over-fixating on polarity keywords (e.g., "supports" or "refutes") at the expense of the semantic topic. We thus introduce diagnostic word-ablation metrics to quantify this phenomenon and propose a data-centric solution. By implementing a balanced argument curriculum alongside LLM-augmented, stance-inverted arguments, we force the (embedding) models to learn deeper directional logic rather than exploiting superficial lexical shortcuts. Our evaluation demonstrates that, for sufficiently powerful models, this approach can alleviate the observed overcorrection, achieving further improvements in stance-aware argument retrieval.

Related papers

• CausalFlip: A Benchmark for LLM Causal Judgment Beyond Semantic Matching [50.65932158912512]
  We propose a new causal reasoning benchmark, CausalFlip, to encourage the development of new large language models.<n>CaulFlip consists of causal judgment questions built over event triples that could form different confounder, chain, and collider relations.<n>We evaluate LLMs under multiple training paradigms, including answer-only training, explicit Chain-of-Thought supervision, and a proposed internalized causal reasoning approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T18:06:15Z)
• Analyzing Reasoning Consistency in Large Multimodal Models under Cross-Modal Conflicts [74.47786985522762]
  We identify a critical failure mode termed textual inertia, where models tend to blindly adhere to the erroneous text while neglecting conflicting visual evidence.<n>We propose the LogicGraph Perturbation Protocol that structurally injects perturbations into the reasoning chains of diverse LMMs.<n>Results reveal that models successfully self-correct in less than 10% of cases and predominantly succumb to blind textual error propagation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T16:39:34Z)
• From Harm to Help: Turning Reasoning In-Context Demos into Assets for Reasoning LMs [58.02809208460186]
  We revisit this paradox using high-quality traces from DeepSeek-R1 as demonstrations.<n>We find that adding more exemplars consistently degrades accuracy, even when demonstrations are optimal.<n>We introduce Insight-to-solve (I2S), a sequential test-time procedure that turns demonstrations into explicit, reusable insights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T08:59:31Z)
• Can LLMs Judge Debates? Evaluating Non-Linear Reasoning via Argumentation Theory Semantics [24.173784986846687]
  We evaluate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can approximate structured reasoning from Computational Argumentation Theory (CAT)<n>We use Quantitative Argumentation Debate (QuAD) semantics, which assigns acceptability scores to arguments based on their attack and support relations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-19T08:10:32Z)
• A Closer Look at Bias and Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness of Large (Vision) Language Models [58.32070787537946]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning enhances performance of large language models.<n>We present the first comprehensive study of CoT faithfulness in large vision-language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T18:55:05Z)
• Causality can systematically address the monsters under the bench(marks) [64.36592889550431]
  Benchmarks are plagued by various biases, artifacts, or leakage.<n>Models may behave unreliably due to poorly explored failure modes.<n> causality offers an ideal framework to systematically address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T17:01:37Z)
• Unsupervised dense retrieval with conterfactual contrastive learning [16.679649921935482]
  We propose to improve the robustness of dense retrieval models by enhancing their sensitivity of fine-graned relevance signals.<n>A model achieving sensitivity in this context should exhibit high variances when documents' key passages determining their relevance to queries have been modified.<n>Motivated by causality and counterfactual analysis, we propose a series of counterfactual regularization methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-30T07:01:34Z)
• Critical-Questions-of-Thought: Steering LLM reasoning with Argumentative Querying [0.3659498819753633]
  State-of-the-art Large Language models (LLMs) continue to struggle when performing logical and mathematical reasoning.<n>This paper makes use of the notion of critical questions from the literature on argumentation theory, focusing in particular on Toulmin's model of argumentation.<n>We show that employing these critical questions can improve the reasoning capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T18:51:30Z)
• "Let's Argue Both Sides": Argument Generation Can Force Small Models to Utilize Previously Inaccessible Reasoning Capabilities [0.8999666725996974]
  We propose Argument Generation as a method of forcing models to utilize their reasoning capabilities. Our method involves the generation of arguments for each possible inference result, and asking the end model to rank the generated arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T19:49:30Z)
• Rethinking harmless refusals when fine-tuning foundation models [0.8571111167616167]
  We investigate the degree to which fine-tuning in Large Language Models (LLMs) effectively mitigates versus merely conceals undesirable behavior. We identify a pervasive phenomenon we term emphreason-based deception, where models either stop producing reasoning traces or produce seemingly ethical reasoning traces that belie the unethical nature of their final outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-27T22:08:22Z)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)

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.