Daily Papers

Fallacies are arguments that employ invalid reasoning, making their automatic detection critical in sensitive contexts such as high-stakes political debates, where public opinion is shaped. Spotting a fallacious argument requires contextual knowledge beyond its pure surface text. This entails world knowledge pertaining to the subject matter under discussion, as well as knowledge of the relationships that exist between arguments within the argumentative discourse. Prior work on fallacy analysis has shown that argumentative discourse structure can beneficially improve classification performance. However, such structure is typically encoded only as static classifier features, limiting its flexibility. Building on this intuition while addressing this limitation, we introduce a guided retrieval-augmented methodology for fallacy detection and classification that leverages argumentative relations of support and attack to dynamically steer the extraction of relevant documents. We evaluate our approach on the ElecDeb60to20 benchmark across 42 retrieval configurations and 14 models, performing retrieval over a 15GB knowledge base of collected political-related documents. Our approach improves macro-F1 up to 0.864 for fallacy detection and up to 0.725 for classification over non-retrieval baselines. These results show that incorporating external knowledge significantly enhances fallacy detection and classification when retrieval is argumentatively guided.

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly shape political discourse, yet exhibit inconsistent responses when challenged. While prior research categorizes LLMs as left- or right-leaning based on single-prompt responses, a critical question remains: Do these classifications reflect stable ideologies or superficial mimicry? Existing methods cannot distinguish between genuine ideological alignment and performative text generation. To address this, we propose a framework for evaluating ideological depth through (1) argumentative consistency and (2) uncertainty quantification. Testing 12 LLMs on 19 economic policies from the Political Compass Test, we classify responses as stable or performative ideological positioning. Results show 95% of left-leaning models and 89% of right-leaning models demonstrate behavior consistent with our classifications across different experimental conditions. Furthermore, semantic entropy strongly validates our classifications (AUROC=0.78), revealing uncertainty's relationship to ideological consistency. Our findings demonstrate that ideological stability is topic-dependent and challenge the notion of monolithic LLM ideologies, and offer a robust way to distinguish genuine alignment from performative behavior.

Explaining Artificial Intelligence (AI) decisions is a major challenge nowadays in AI, in particular when applied to sensitive scenarios like medicine and law. However, the need to explain the rationale behind decisions is a main issue also for human-based deliberation as it is important to justify why a certain decision has been taken. Resident medical doctors for instance are required not only to provide a (possibly correct) diagnosis, but also to explain how they reached a certain conclusion. Developing new tools to aid residents to train their explanation skills is therefore a central objective of AI in education. In this paper, we follow this direction, and we present, to the best of our knowledge, the first multilingual dataset for Medical Question Answering where correct and incorrect diagnoses for a clinical case are enriched with a natural language explanation written by doctors. These explanations have been manually annotated with argument components (i.e., premise, claim) and argument relations (i.e., attack, support), resulting in the Multilingual CasiMedicos-Arg dataset which consists of 558 clinical cases in four languages (English, Spanish, French, Italian) with explanations, where we annotated 5021 claims, 2313 premises, 2431 support relations, and 1106 attack relations. We conclude by showing how competitive baselines perform over this challenging dataset for the argument mining task.

Moltbook is a social network where every participant is an AI agent. We analyze 1,312,238 posts, 6.7~million comments, and over 120,000 agent profiles across 5,400 communities, collected over 40 days (January 27 to March 9, 2026). We evaluate the platform through three layers. At the interaction layer, 91.4% of post authors never return to their own threads, 85.6% of conversations are flat (no reply ever receives a reply), the median time-to-first-comment is 55 seconds, and 97.3% of comments receive zero upvotes. Interaction reciprocity is 3.3%, compared to 22-60% on human platforms. An argumentation analysis finds that 64.6% of comment-to-post relations carry no argumentative connection. At the content layer, 97.9% of agents never post in a community matching their bio, 92.5% of communities contain every topic in roughly equal proportions, and over 80% of shared URLs point to the platform's own infrastructure. At the instruction layer, we use 41 Wayback Machine snapshots to identify six instruction changes during the observation window. Hard constraints (rate limit, content filters) produce immediate behavioral shifts. Soft guidance (``upvote good posts'', ``stay on topic'') is ignored until it becomes an explicit step in the executable checklist. The platform also poses technological risks. We document credential leaks (API keys, JWT tokens), 12,470 unique Ethereum addresses with 3,529 confirmed transaction histories, and attack discourse ranging from template-based SSH brute-forcing to multi-agent offensive security architectures. These persist unmoderated because the quality-filtering mechanisms are themselves non-functional. Moltbook is a socio-technical system where the technical layer responds to changes, but the social layer largely fails to emerge. The form of social media is reproduced in full. The function is absent.

Nowadays the medical domain is receiving more and more attention in applications involving Artificial Intelligence. Clinicians have to deal with an enormous amount of unstructured textual data to make a conclusion about patients' health in their everyday life. Argument mining helps to provide a structure to such data by detecting argumentative components in the text and classifying the relations between them. However, as it is the case for many tasks in Natural Language Processing in general and in medical text processing in particular, the large majority of the work on computational argumentation has been done only for English. This is also the case with the only dataset available for argumentation in the medical domain, namely, the annotated medical data of abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) from the MEDLINE database. In order to mitigate the lack of annotated data for other languages, we empirically investigate several strategies to perform argument mining and classification in medical texts for a language for which no annotated data is available. This project shows that automatically translating and project annotations from English to a target language (Spanish) is an effective way to generate annotated data without manual intervention. Furthermore, our experiments demonstrate that the translation and projection approach outperforms zero-shot cross-lingual approaches using a large masked multilingual language model. Finally, we show how the automatically generated data in Spanish can also be used to improve results in the original English evaluation setting.

This study demonstrates the effectiveness of XLNet, a transformer-based language model, for annotating argumentative elements in persuasive essays. XLNet's architecture incorporates a recurrent mechanism that allows it to model long-term dependencies in lengthy texts. Fine-tuned XLNet models were applied to three datasets annotated with different schemes - a proprietary dataset using the Annotations for Revisions and Reflections on Writing (ARROW) scheme, the PERSUADE corpus, and the Argument Annotated Essays (AAE) dataset. The XLNet models achieved strong performance across all datasets, even surpassing human agreement levels in some cases. This shows XLNet capably handles diverse annotation schemes and lengthy essays. Comparisons between the model outputs on different datasets also revealed insights into the relationships between the annotation tags. Overall, XLNet's strong performance on modeling argumentative structures across diverse datasets highlights its suitability for providing automated feedback on essay organization.

The connections among natural language processing and argumentation theory are becoming stronger in the latest years, with a growing amount of works going in this direction, in different scenarios and applying heterogeneous techniques. In this paper, we present two datasets we built to cope with the combination of the Textual Entailment framework and bipolar abstract argumentation. In our approach, such datasets are used to automatically identify through a Textual Entailment system the relations among the arguments (i.e., attack, support), and then the resulting bipolar argumentation graphs are analyzed to compute the accepted arguments.

Discourse relations describe how two propositions relate to one another, and identifying them automatically is an integral part of natural language understanding. However, annotating discourse relations typically requires expert annotators. Recently, different semantic aspects of a sentence have been represented and crowd-sourced via question-and-answer (QA) pairs. This paper proposes a novel representation of discourse relations as QA pairs, which in turn allows us to crowd-source wide-coverage data annotated with discourse relations, via an intuitively appealing interface for composing such questions and answers. Based on our proposed representation, we collect a novel and wide-coverage QADiscourse dataset, and present baseline algorithms for predicting QADiscourse relations.

In this work, we focus on the problem of retrieving relevant arguments for a query claim covering diverse aspects. State-of-the-art methods rely on explicit mappings between claims and premises, and thus are unable to utilize large available collections of premises without laborious and costly manual annotation. Their diversity approach relies on removing duplicates via clustering which does not directly ensure that the selected premises cover all aspects. This work introduces a new multi-step approach for the argument retrieval problem. Rather than relying on ground-truth assignments, our approach employs a machine learning model to capture semantic relationships between arguments. Beyond that, it aims to cover diverse facets of the query, instead of trying to identify duplicates explicitly. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates that our approach leads to a significant improvement in the argument retrieval task even though it requires less data.

This paper investigates the role of dynamic external knowledge integration in improving counter-argument generation using Large Language Models (LLMs). While LLMs have shown promise in argumentative tasks, their tendency to generate lengthy, potentially unfactual responses highlights the need for more controlled and evidence-based approaches. We introduce a new manually curated dataset of argument and counter-argument pairs specifically designed to balance argumentative complexity with evaluative feasibility. We also propose a new LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation methodology that shows a stronger correlation with human judgments compared to traditional reference-based metrics. Our experimental results demonstrate that integrating dynamic external knowledge from the web significantly improves the quality of generated counter-arguments, particularly in terms of relatedness, persuasiveness, and factuality. The findings suggest that combining LLMs with real-time external knowledge retrieval offers a promising direction for developing more effective and reliable counter-argumentation systems.

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.

An important skill in critical thinking and argumentation is the ability to spot and recognize fallacies. Fallacious arguments, omnipresent in argumentative discourse, can be deceptive, manipulative, or simply leading to `wrong moves' in a discussion. Despite their importance, argumentation scholars and NLP researchers with focus on argumentation quality have not yet investigated fallacies empirically. The nonexistence of resources dealing with fallacious argumentation calls for scalable approaches to data acquisition and annotation, for which the serious games methodology offers an appealing, yet unexplored, alternative. We present Argotario, a serious game that deals with fallacies in everyday argumentation. Argotario is a multilingual, open-source, platform-independent application with strong educational aspects, accessible at www.argotario.net.

Argumentation is one of society's foundational pillars, and, sparked by advances in NLP and the vast availability of text data, automated mining of arguments receives increasing attention. A decisive property of arguments is their strength or quality. While there are works on the automated estimation of argument strength, their scope is narrow: they focus on isolated datasets and neglect the interactions with related argument mining tasks, such as argument identification, evidence detection, or emotional appeal. In this work, we close this gap by approaching argument quality estimation from multiple different angles: Grounded on rich results from thorough empirical evaluations, we assess the generalization capabilities of argument quality estimation across diverse domains, the interplay with related argument mining tasks, and the impact of emotions on perceived argument strength. We find that generalization depends on a sufficient representation of different domains in the training part. In zero-shot transfer and multi-task experiments, we reveal that argument quality is among the more challenging tasks but can improve others. Finally, we show that emotions play a minor role in argument quality than is often assumed.

Studies have underscored how, regardless of the recent breakthrough and swift advances in AI research, even state-of-the-art Large Language models (LLMs) continue to struggle when performing logical and mathematical reasoning. The results seem to suggest that LLMs still work as (highly advanced) data pattern identifiers, scoring poorly when attempting to generalise and solve reasoning problems the models have never previously seen or that are not close to samples presented in their training data. To address this compelling concern, 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. We show that employing these critical questions can improve the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. By probing the rationale behind the models' reasoning process, the LLM can assess whether some logical mistake is occurring and correct it before providing the final reply to the user prompt. The underlying idea is drawn from the gold standard of any valid argumentative procedure: the conclusion is valid if it is entailed by accepted premises. Or, to paraphrase such Aristotelian principle in a real-world approximation, characterised by incomplete information and presumptive logic, the conclusion is valid if not proved otherwise. This approach successfully steers the models' output through a reasoning pipeline, resulting in better performance against the baseline and its Chain-of-Thought (CoT) implementation. To this end, an extensive evaluation of the proposed approach on the MT-Bench Reasoning and Math tasks across a range of LLMs is provided.

One of the main tasks in argument mining is the retrieval of argumentative content pertaining to a given topic. Most previous work addressed this task by retrieving a relatively small number of relevant documents as the initial source for such content. This line of research yielded moderate success, which is of limited use in a real-world system. Furthermore, for such a system to yield a comprehensive set of relevant arguments, over a wide range of topics, it requires leveraging a large and diverse corpus in an appropriate manner. Here we present a first end-to-end high-precision, corpus-wide argument mining system. This is made possible by combining sentence-level queries over an appropriate indexing of a very large corpus of newspaper articles, with an iterative annotation scheme. This scheme addresses the inherent label bias in the data and pinpoints the regions of the sample space whose manual labeling is required to obtain high-precision among top-ranked candidates.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at linear reasoning tasks but remain underexplored on non-linear structures such as those found in natural debates, which are best expressed as argument graphs. We evaluate whether LLMs can approximate structured reasoning from Computational Argumentation Theory (CAT). Specifically, we use Quantitative Argumentation Debate (QuAD) semantics, which assigns acceptability scores to arguments based on their attack and support relations. Given only dialogue-formatted debates from two NoDE datasets, models are prompted to rank arguments without access to the underlying graph. We test several LLMs under advanced instruction strategies, including Chain-of-Thought and In-Context Learning. While models show moderate alignment with QuAD rankings, performance degrades with longer inputs or disrupted discourse flow. Advanced prompting helps mitigate these effects by reducing biases related to argument length and position. Our findings highlight both the promise and limitations of LLMs in modeling formal argumentation semantics and motivate future work on graph-aware reasoning.

Argument mining involves multiple sub-tasks that automatically identify argumentative elements, such as claim detection, evidence extraction, stance classification, etc. However, each subtask alone is insufficient for a thorough understanding of the argumentative structure and reasoning process. To learn a complete view of an argument essay and capture the interdependence among argumentative components, we need to know what opinions people hold (i.e., claims), why those opinions are valid (i.e., supporting evidence), which source the evidence comes from (i.e., evidence type), and how those claims react to the debating topic (i.e., stance). In this work, we for the first time propose a challenging argument quadruplet extraction task (AQE), which can provide an all-in-one extraction of four argumentative components, i.e., claims, evidence, evidence types, and stances. To support this task, we construct a large-scale and challenging dataset. However, there is no existing method that can solve the argument quadruplet extraction. To fill this gap, we propose a novel quad-tagging augmented generative approach, which leverages a quadruplet tagging module to augment the training of the generative framework. The experimental results on our dataset demonstrate the empirical superiority of our proposed approach over several strong baselines.

With the recent advances of large language models (LLMs), it is no longer infeasible to build an automated debate system that helps people to synthesise persuasive arguments. Previous work attempted this task by integrating multiple components. In our work, we introduce an argument mining dataset that captures the end-to-end process of preparing an argumentative essay for a debate, which covers the tasks of claim and evidence identification (Task 1 ED), evidence convincingness ranking (Task 2 ECR), argumentative essay summarisation and human preference ranking (Task 3 ASR) and metric learning for automated evaluation of resulting essays, based on human feedback along argument quality dimensions (Task 4 SQE). Our dataset contains 14k examples of claims that are fully annotated with the various properties supporting the aforementioned tasks. We evaluate multiple generative baselines for each of these tasks, including representative LLMs. We find, that while they show promising results on individual tasks in our benchmark, their end-to-end performance on all four tasks in succession deteriorates significantly, both in automated measures as well as in human-centred evaluation. This challenge presented by our proposed dataset motivates future research on end-to-end argument mining and summarisation. The repository of this project is available at https://github.com/HarrywillDr/ArgSum-Datatset

Argumentation mining (AM) requires the identification of complex discourse structures and has lately been applied with success monolingually. In this work, we show that the existing resources are, however, not adequate for assessing cross-lingual AM, due to their heterogeneity or lack of complexity. We therefore create suitable parallel corpora by (human and machine) translating a popular AM dataset consisting of persuasive student essays into German, French, Spanish, and Chinese. We then compare (i) annotation projection and (ii) bilingual word embeddings based direct transfer strategies for cross-lingual AM, finding that the former performs considerably better and almost eliminates the loss from cross-lingual transfer. Moreover, we find that annotation projection works equally well when using either costly human or cheap machine translations. Our code and data are available at http://github.com/UKPLab/coling2018-xling_argument_mining.

Visual arguments, often used in advertising or social causes, rely on images to persuade viewers to do or believe something. Understanding these arguments requires selective vision: only specific visual stimuli within an image are relevant to the argument, and relevance can only be understood within the context of a broader argumentative structure. While visual arguments are readily appreciated by human audiences, we ask: are today's AI capable of similar understanding? We collect and release VisArgs, an annotated corpus designed to make explicit the (usually implicit) structures underlying visual arguments. VisArgs includes 1,611 images accompanied by three types of textual annotations: 5,112 visual premises (with region annotations), 5,574 commonsense premises, and reasoning trees connecting them to a broader argument. We propose three tasks over VisArgs to probe machine capacity for visual argument understanding: localization of premises, identification of premises, and deduction of conclusions. Experiments demonstrate that 1) machines cannot fully identify the relevant visual cues. The top-performing model, GPT-4-O, achieved an accuracy of only 78.5%, whereas humans reached 98.0%. All models showed a performance drop, with an average decrease in accuracy of 19.5%, when the comparison set was changed from objects outside the image to irrelevant objects within the image. Furthermore, 2) this limitation is the greatest factor impacting their performance in understanding visual arguments. Most models improved the most when given relevant visual premises as additional inputs, compared to other inputs, for deducing the conclusion of the visual argument.

The successful analysis of argumentative techniques from user-generated text is central to many downstream tasks such as political and market analysis. Recent argument mining tools use state-of-the-art deep learning methods to extract and annotate argumentative techniques from various online text corpora, however each task is treated as separate and different bespoke models are fine-tuned for each dataset. We show that different argument mining tasks share common semantic and logical structure by implementing a multi-task approach to argument mining that achieves better performance than state-of-the-art methods for the same problems. Our model builds a shared representation of the input text that is common to all tasks and exploits similarities between tasks in order to further boost performance via parameter-sharing. Our results are important for argument mining as they show that different tasks share substantial similarities and suggest a holistic approach to the extraction of argumentative techniques from text.

Legal relations serve as an important analytical framework for dispute resolution in civil cases. However, legal relations in Chinese civil cases remain underexplored in the field of legal AI, largely due to the absence of comprehensive schemas. In this work, we first introduce a comprehensive schema for legal relations in civil cases, which contains a hierarchical taxonomy and definitions of arguments. Based on this schema, we formulate a legal relation extraction task and present LexRel, an expert-annotated benchmark for legal relation extraction in the Chinese civil law domain. We use LexRel to evaluate state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) on legal relation extraction, showing that current LLMs exhibit significant limitations in accurately identifying civil legal relations. Furthermore, we demonstrate that explicitly incorporating information about legal relations leads to promising performance gains on other downstream legal AI tasks.

We present R-Debater, an agentic framework for generating multi-turn debates built on argumentative memory. Grounded in rhetoric and memory studies, the system views debate as a process of recalling and adapting prior arguments to maintain stance consistency, respond to opponents, and support claims with evidence. Specifically, R-Debater integrates a debate knowledge base for retrieving case-like evidence and prior debate moves with a role-based agent that composes coherent utterances across turns. We evaluate on standardized ORCHID debates, constructing a 1,000-item retrieval corpus and a held-out set of 32 debates across seven domains. Two tasks are evaluated: next-utterance generation, assessed by InspireScore (subjective, logical, and factual), and adversarial multi-turn simulations, judged by Debatrix (argument, source, language, and overall). Compared with strong LLM baselines, R-Debater achieves higher single-turn and multi-turn scores. Human evaluation with 20 experienced debaters further confirms its consistency and evidence use, showing that combining retrieval grounding with structured planning yields more faithful, stance-aligned, and coherent debates across turns.

This paper takes a first step towards a critical thinking curriculum for neural auto-regressive language models. We introduce a synthetic corpus of deductively valid arguments, and generate artificial argumentative texts to train and evaluate GPT-2. Significant transfer learning effects can be observed: Training a model on three simple core schemes allows it to accurately complete conclusions of different, and more complex types of arguments, too. The language models generalize the core argument schemes in a correct way. Moreover, we obtain consistent and promising results for NLU benchmarks. In particular, pre-training on the argument schemes raises zero-shot accuracy on the GLUE diagnostics by up to 15 percentage points. The findings suggest that intermediary pre-training on texts that exemplify basic reasoning abilities (such as typically covered in critical thinking textbooks) might help language models to acquire a broad range of reasoning skills. The synthetic argumentative texts presented in this paper are a promising starting point for building such a "critical thinking curriculum for language models."

The argument role in event extraction refers to the relation between an event and an argument participating in it. Despite the great progress in event extraction, existing studies still depend on roles pre-defined by domain experts. These studies expose obvious weakness when extending to emerging event types or new domains without available roles. Therefore, more attention and effort needs to be devoted to automatically customizing argument roles. In this paper, we define this essential but under-explored task: open-vocabulary argument role prediction. The goal of this task is to infer a set of argument roles for a given event type. We propose a novel unsupervised framework, RolePred for this task. Specifically, we formulate the role prediction problem as an in-filling task and construct prompts for a pre-trained language model to generate candidate roles. By extracting and analyzing the candidate arguments, the event-specific roles are further merged and selected. To standardize the research of this task, we collect a new event extraction dataset from WikiPpedia including 142 customized argument roles with rich semantics. On this dataset, RolePred outperforms the existing methods by a large margin. Source code and dataset are available on our GitHub repository: https://github.com/yzjiao/RolePred

Logical fallacies are common in public communication and can mislead audiences; fallacious arguments may still appear convincing despite lacking soundness, because convincingness is inherently subjective. We present the first computational study of how emotional framing interacts with fallacies and convincingness, using large language models (LLMs) to systematically change emotional appeals in fallacious arguments. We benchmark eight LLMs on injecting emotional appeal into fallacious arguments while preserving their logical structures, then use the best models to generate stimuli for a human study. Our results show that LLM-driven emotional framing reduces human fallacy detection in F1 by 14.5% on average. Humans perform better in fallacy detection when perceiving enjoyment than fear or sadness, and these three emotions also correlate with significantly higher convincingness compared to neutral or other emotion states. Our work has implications for AI-driven emotional manipulation in the context of fallacious argumentation.

This paper investigates the rational thinking capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in multi-round argumentative debates by exploring the impact of fallacious arguments on their logical reasoning performance. More specifically, we present Logic Competence Measurement Benchmark (LOGICOM), a diagnostic benchmark to assess the robustness of LLMs against logical fallacies. LOGICOM involves two agents: a persuader and a debater engaging in a multi-round debate on a controversial topic, where the persuader tries to convince the debater of the correctness of its claim. First, LOGICOM assesses the potential of LLMs to change their opinions through reasoning. Then, it evaluates the debater's performance in logical reasoning by contrasting the scenario where the persuader employs logical fallacies against one where logical reasoning is used. We use this benchmark to evaluate the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 using a dataset containing controversial topics, claims, and reasons supporting them. Our findings indicate that both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can adjust their opinion through reasoning. However, when presented with logical fallacies, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 are erroneously convinced 41% and 69% more often, respectively, compared to when logical reasoning is used. Finally, we introduce a new dataset containing over 5k pairs of logical vs. fallacious arguments. The source code and dataset of this work are made publicly available.

We introduce OpenDebateEvidence, a comprehensive dataset for argument mining and summarization sourced from the American Competitive Debate community. This dataset includes over 3.5 million documents with rich metadata, making it one of the most extensive collections of debate evidence. OpenDebateEvidence captures the complexity of arguments in high school and college debates, providing valuable resources for training and evaluation. Our extensive experiments demonstrate the efficacy of fine-tuning state-of-the-art large language models for argumentative abstractive summarization across various methods, models, and datasets. By providing this comprehensive resource, we aim to advance computational argumentation and support practical applications for debaters, educators, and researchers. OpenDebateEvidence is publicly available to support further research and innovation in computational argumentation. Access it here: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Yusuf5/OpenCaselist

In this paper, we present and implement a multi-dimensional, modular framework for performing deep argument analysis (DeepA2) using current pre-trained language models (PTLMs). ArgumentAnalyst -- a T5 model (Raffel et al. 2020) set up and trained within DeepA2 -- reconstructs argumentative texts, which advance an informal argumentation, as valid arguments: It inserts, e.g., missing premises and conclusions, formalizes inferences, and coherently links the logical reconstruction to the source text. We create a synthetic corpus for deep argument analysis, and evaluate ArgumentAnalyst on this new dataset as well as on existing data, specifically EntailmentBank (Dalvi et al. 2021). Our empirical findings vindicate the overall framework and highlight the advantages of a modular design, in particular its ability to emulate established heuristics (such as hermeneutic cycles), to explore the model's uncertainty, to cope with the plurality of correct solutions (underdetermination), and to exploit higher-order evidence.

We argue that enabling human-AI dialogue, purposed to support joint reasoning (i.e., 'inquiry'), is important for ensuring that AI decision making is aligned with human values and preferences. In particular, we point to logic-based models of argumentation and dialogue, and suggest that the traditional focus on persuasion dialogues be replaced by a focus on inquiry dialogues, and the distinct challenges that joint inquiry raises. Given recent dramatic advances in the performance of large language models (LLMs), and the anticipated increase in their use for decision making, we provide a roadmap for research into inquiry dialogues for supporting joint human-LLM reasoning tasks that are ethically salient, and that thereby require that decisions are value aligned.

Recent work within the Argument Mining community has shown the applicability of Natural Language Processing systems for solving problems found within competitive debate. One of the most important tasks within competitive debate is for debaters to create high quality debate cases. We show that effective debate cases can be constructed using constrained shortest path traversals on Argumentative Semantic Knowledge Graphs. We study this potential in the context of a type of American Competitive Debate, called Policy Debate, which already has a large scale dataset targeting it called DebateSum. We significantly improve upon DebateSum by introducing 53180 new examples, as well as further useful metadata for every example, to the dataset. We leverage the txtai semantic search and knowledge graph toolchain to produce and contribute 9 semantic knowledge graphs built on this dataset. We create a unique method for evaluating which knowledge graphs are better in the context of producing policy debate cases. A demo which automatically generates debate cases, along with all other code and the Knowledge Graphs, are open-sourced and made available to the public here: https://github.com/Hellisotherpeople/DebateKG

With the advancement in argument detection, we suggest to pay more attention to the challenging task of identifying the more convincing arguments. Machines capable of responding and interacting with humans in helpful ways have become ubiquitous. We now expect them to discuss with us the more delicate questions in our world, and they should do so armed with effective arguments. But what makes an argument more persuasive? What will convince you? In this paper, we present a new data set, IBM-EviConv, of pairs of evidence labeled for convincingness, designed to be more challenging than existing alternatives. We also propose a Siamese neural network architecture shown to outperform several baselines on both a prior convincingness data set and our own. Finally, we provide insights into our experimental results and the various kinds of argumentative value our method is capable of detecting.

This paper aims to quantitatively evaluate the performance of ChatGPT, an interactive large language model, on inter-sentential relations such as temporal relations, causal relations, and discourse relations. Given ChatGPT's promising performance across various tasks, we proceed to carry out thorough evaluations on the whole test sets of 11 datasets, including temporal and causal relations, PDTB2.0-based, and dialogue-based discourse relations. To ensure the reliability of our findings, we employ three tailored prompt templates for each task, including the zero-shot prompt template, zero-shot prompt engineering (PE) template, and in-context learning (ICL) prompt template, to establish the initial baseline scores for all popular sentence-pair relation classification tasks for the first time. Through our study, we discover that ChatGPT exhibits exceptional proficiency in detecting and reasoning about causal relations, albeit it may not possess the same level of expertise in identifying the temporal order between two events. While it is capable of identifying the majority of discourse relations with existing explicit discourse connectives, the implicit discourse relation remains a formidable challenge. Concurrently, ChatGPT demonstrates subpar performance in the dialogue discourse parsing task that requires structural understanding in a dialogue before being aware of the discourse relation.

There are two main barriers to using large language models (LLMs) in clinical reasoning. Firstly, while LLMs exhibit significant promise in Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, their performance in complex reasoning and planning falls short of expectations. Secondly, LLMs use uninterpretable methods to make clinical decisions that are fundamentally different from the clinician's cognitive processes. This leads to user distrust. In this paper, we present a multi-agent framework called ArgMed-Agents, which aims to enable LLM-based agents to make explainable clinical decision reasoning through interaction. ArgMed-Agents performs self-argumentation iterations via Argumentation Scheme for Clinical Discussion (a reasoning mechanism for modeling cognitive processes in clinical reasoning), and then constructs the argumentation process as a directed graph representing conflicting relationships. Ultimately, use symbolic solver to identify a series of rational and coherent arguments to support decision. We construct a formal model of ArgMed-Agents and present conjectures for theoretical guarantees. ArgMed-Agents enables LLMs to mimic the process of clinical argumentative reasoning by generating explanations of reasoning in a self-directed manner. The setup experiments show that ArgMed-Agents not only improves accuracy in complex clinical decision reasoning problems compared to other prompt methods, but more importantly, it provides users with decision explanations that increase their confidence.

In many domains of argumentation, people's arguments are driven by so-called attitude roots, i.e., underlying beliefs and world views, and their corresponding attitude themes. Given the strength of these latent drivers of arguments, recent work in psychology suggests that instead of directly countering surface-level reasoning (e.g., falsifying given premises), one should follow an argumentation style inspired by the Jiu-Jitsu 'soft' combat system (Hornsey and Fielding, 2017): first, identify an arguer's attitude roots and themes, and then choose a prototypical rebuttal that is aligned with those drivers instead of invalidating those. In this work, we are the first to explore Jiu-Jitsu argumentation for peer review by proposing the novel task of attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation. To this end, we enrich an existing dataset for discourse structure in peer reviews with attitude roots, attitude themes, and canonical rebuttals. To facilitate this process, we recast established annotation concepts from the domain of peer reviews (e.g., aspects a review sentence is relating to) and train domain-specific models. We then propose strong rebuttal generation strategies, which we benchmark on our novel dataset for the task of end-to-end attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation and two subtasks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful candidates for complex decision-making, leveraging vast encoded knowledge and remarkable zero-shot abilities. However, their adoption in high-stakes environments is hindered by their opacity; their outputs lack faithful explanations and cannot be effectively contested to correct errors, undermining trustworthiness. In this paper, we propose ART (Adaptive Reasoning Trees), a hierarchical method for claim verification. The process begins with a root claim, which branches into supporting and attacking child arguments. An argument's strength is determined bottom-up via a pairwise tournament of its children, adjudicated by a judge LLM, allowing a final, transparent and contestable verdict to be systematically derived which is missing in methods like Chain-of-Thought (CoT). We empirically validate ART on multiple datasets, analyzing different argument generators and comparison strategies. Our findings show that ART's structured reasoning outperforms strong baselines, establishing a new benchmark for explainable claim verification which is more reliable and ensures clarity in the overall decision making step.

In a recent paper, Erasmus et al. (2021) defend the idea that the ambiguity of the term "explanation" in explainable AI (XAI) can be solved by adopting any of four different extant accounts of explanation in the philosophy of science: the Deductive Nomological, Inductive Statistical, Causal Mechanical, and New Mechanist models. In this chapter, I show that the authors' claim that these accounts can be applied to deep neural networks as they would to any natural phenomenon is mistaken. I also provide a more general argument as to why the notion of explainability as it is currently used in the XAI literature bears little resemblance to the traditional concept of scientific explanation. It would be more fruitful to use the label "understandable AI" to avoid the confusion that surrounds the goal and purposes of XAI. In the second half of the chapter, I argue for a pragmatic conception of understanding that is better suited to play the central role attributed to explanation in XAI. Following Kuorikoski & Ylikoski (2015), the conditions of satisfaction for understanding an ML system are fleshed out in terms of an agent's success in using the system, in drawing correct inferences from it.

Case Law has a significant impact on the proceedings of legal cases. Therefore, the information that can be obtained from previous court cases is valuable to lawyers and other legal officials when performing their duties. This paper describes a methodology of applying discourse relations between sentences when processing text documents related to the legal domain. In this study, we developed a mechanism to classify the relationships that can be observed among sentences in transcripts of United States court cases. First, we defined relationship types that can be observed between sentences in court case transcripts. Then we classified pairs of sentences according to the relationship type by combining a machine learning model and a rule-based approach. The results obtained through our system were evaluated using human judges. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study where discourse relationships between sentences have been used to determine relationships among sentences in legal court case transcripts.

In the rapidly evolving field of Large Language Models (LLMs), there is a critical need to thoroughly analyze their capabilities and risks. Central to our investigation are two novel elements. Firstly, it is the innovative parallels between the statistical patterns of word relationships within LLMs and Martin Heidegger's concepts of "ready-to-hand" and "present-at-hand," which encapsulate the utilitarian and scientific altitudes humans employ in interacting with the world. This comparison lays the groundwork for positioning LLMs as the digital counterpart to the Faculty of Verbal Knowledge, shedding light on their capacity to emulate certain facets of human reasoning. Secondly, a structural analysis of human reasoning, viewed through Heidegger's notion of truth as "unconcealment" is conducted This foundational principle enables us to map out the inputs and outputs of the reasoning system and divide reasoning into four distinct categories. Respective cognitive faculties are delineated, allowing us to place LLMs within the broader schema of human reasoning, thus clarifying their strengths and inherent limitations. Our findings reveal that while LLMs possess the capability for Direct Explicative Reasoning and Pseudo Rational Reasoning, they fall short in authentic rational reasoning and have no creative reasoning capabilities, due to the current lack of many analogous AI models such as the Faculty of Judgement. The potential and risks of LLMs when they are augmented with other AI technologies are also evaluated. The results indicate that although LLMs have achieved proficiency in some reasoning abilities, the aspiration to match or exceed human intellectual capabilities is yet unattained. This research not only enriches our comprehension of LLMs but also propels forward the discourse on AI's potential and its bounds, paving the way for future explorations into AI's evolving landscape.

In this work we address the problem of argument search. The purpose of argument search is the distillation of pro and contra arguments for requested topics from large text corpora. In previous works, the usual approach is to use a standard search engine to extract text parts which are relevant to the given topic and subsequently use an argument recognition algorithm to select arguments from them. The main challenge in the argument recognition task, which is also known as argument mining, is that often sentences containing arguments are structurally similar to purely informative sentences without any stance about the topic. In fact, they only differ semantically. Most approaches use topic or search term information only for the first search step and therefore assume that arguments can be classified independently of a topic. We argue that topic information is crucial for argument mining, since the topic defines the semantic context of an argument. Precisely, we propose different models for the classification of arguments, which take information about a topic of an argument into account. Moreover, to enrich the context of a topic and to let models understand the context of the potential argument better, we integrate information from different external sources such as Knowledge Graphs or pre-trained NLP models. Our evaluation shows that considering topic information, especially in connection with external information, provides a significant performance boost for the argument mining task.

Debate is the process of exchanging viewpoints or convincing others on a particular issue. Recent research has provided empirical evidence that the persuasiveness of an argument is determined not only by language usage but also by communicator characteristics. Researchers have paid much attention to aspects of languages, such as linguistic features and discourse structures, but combining argument persuasiveness and impact with the social personae of the audience has not been explored due to the difficulty and complexity. We have observed the impressive simulation and personification capability of ChatGPT, indicating a giant pre-trained language model may function as an individual to provide personae and exert unique influences based on diverse background knowledge. Therefore, we propose a persona knowledge-aligned framework for argument quality assessment tasks from the audience side. This is the first work that leverages the emergence of ChatGPT and injects such audience personae knowledge into smaller language models via prompt tuning. The performance of our pipeline demonstrates significant and consistent improvement compared to competitive architectures.

While moral reasoning has emerged as a promising research direction for large language models (LLMs), achieving robust generalization remains a critical challenge. This challenge arises from the gap between what is said and what is morally implied. In this paper, we build on metapragmatic links and the moral foundations theory to close the gap. Specifically, we develop a pragmatic-inference approach that facilitates LLMs, for a given moral situation, to acquire the metapragmantic links between moral reasoning objectives and the social variables that affect them. This approach is adapted to three different moral reasoning tasks to demonstrate its adaptability and generalizability. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach significantly enhances LLMs' generalization in moral reasoning, paving the road for future research to utilize pragmatic inference in various moral reasoning tasks.

Relational reasoning is the ability to infer relations that jointly bind multiple entities, attributes, or variables. This ability is central to scientific reasoning, but existing evaluations of relational reasoning in large language models often focus on structured inputs such as tables, graphs, or synthetic tasks, and do not isolate the difficulty introduced by higher-arity relational binding. We study this problem through the lens of Relational Complexity (RC), which we define as the minimum number of independent entities or operands that must be simultaneously bound to apply a relation. RC provides a principled way to vary reasoning difficulty while controlling for confounders such as input size, vocabulary, and representational choices. Building on RC, we introduce REL, a generative benchmark framework spanning algebra, chemistry, and biology that varies RC within each domain. Across frontier LLMs, performance degrades consistently and monotonically as RC increases, even when the total number of entities is held fixed. This failure mode persists with increased test-time compute and in-context learning, suggesting a limitation tied to the arity of the required relational binding rather than to insufficient inference steps or lack of exposure to examples. Our results identify a regime of higher-arity reasoning in which current models struggle, and motivate re-examining benchmarks through the lens of relational complexity.

Understanding the relations between entities denoted by NPs in a text is a critical part of human-like natural language understanding. However, only a fraction of such relations is covered by standard NLP tasks and benchmarks nowadays. In this work, we propose a novel task termed text-based NP enrichment (TNE), in which we aim to enrich each NP in a text with all the preposition-mediated relations -- either explicit or implicit -- that hold between it and other NPs in the text. The relations are represented as triplets, each denoted by two NPs related via a preposition. Humans recover such relations seamlessly, while current state-of-the-art models struggle with them due to the implicit nature of the problem. We build the first large-scale dataset for the problem, provide the formal framing and scope of annotation, analyze the data, and report the results of fine-tuned language models on the task, demonstrating the challenge it poses to current technology. A webpage with a data-exploration UI, a demo, and links to the code, models, and leaderboard, to foster further research into this challenging problem can be found at: yanaiela.github.io/TNE/.

Deductive reasoning plays a pivotal role in the formulation of sound and cohesive arguments. It allows individuals to draw conclusions that logically follow, given the truth value of the information provided. Recent progress in the domain of large language models (LLMs) has showcased their capability in executing deductive reasoning tasks. Nonetheless, a significant portion of research primarily assesses the accuracy of LLMs in solving such tasks, often overlooking a deeper analysis of their reasoning behavior. In this study, we draw upon principles from cognitive psychology to examine inferential strategies employed by LLMs, through a detailed evaluation of their responses to propositional logic problems. Our findings indicate that LLMs display reasoning patterns akin to those observed in humans, including strategies like supposition following or chain construction. Moreover, our research demonstrates that the architecture and scale of the model significantly affect its preferred method of reasoning, with more advanced models tending to adopt strategies more frequently than less sophisticated ones. Importantly, we assert that a model's accuracy, that is the correctness of its final conclusion, does not necessarily reflect the validity of its reasoning process. This distinction underscores the necessity for more nuanced evaluation procedures in the field.

The human ability to flexibly reason using analogies with domain-general content depends on mechanisms for identifying relations between concepts, and for mapping concepts and their relations across analogs. Building on a recent model of how semantic relations can be learned from non-relational word embeddings, we present a new computational model of mapping between two analogs. The model adopts a Bayesian framework for probabilistic graph matching, operating on semantic relation networks constructed from distributed representations of individual concepts and of relations between concepts. Through comparisons of model predictions with human performance in a novel mapping task requiring integration of multiple relations, as well as in several classic studies, we demonstrate that the model accounts for a broad range of phenomena involving analogical mapping by both adults and children. We also show the potential for extending the model to deal with analog retrieval. Our approach demonstrates that human-like analogical mapping can emerge from comparison mechanisms applied to rich semantic representations of individual concepts and relations.

Disagreement in natural language annotation has mostly been studied from a perspective of biases introduced by the annotators and the annotation frameworks. Here, we propose to analyze another source of bias: task design bias, which has a particularly strong impact on crowdsourced linguistic annotations where natural language is used to elicit the interpretation of laymen annotators. For this purpose we look at implicit discourse relation annotation, a task that has repeatedly been shown to be difficult due to the relations' ambiguity. We compare the annotations of 1,200 discourse relations obtained using two distinct annotation tasks and quantify the biases of both methods across four different domains. Both methods are natural language annotation tasks designed for crowdsourcing. We show that the task design can push annotators towards certain relations and that some discourse relations senses can be better elicited with one or the other annotation approach. We also conclude that this type of bias should be taken into account when training and testing models.

Identifying the quality of free-text arguments has become an important task in the rapidly expanding field of computational argumentation. In this work, we explore the challenging task of argument quality ranking. To this end, we created a corpus of 30,497 arguments carefully annotated for point-wise quality, released as part of this work. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest dataset annotated for point-wise argument quality, larger by a factor of five than previously released datasets. Moreover, we address the core issue of inducing a labeled score from crowd annotations by performing a comprehensive evaluation of different approaches to this problem. In addition, we analyze the quality dimensions that characterize this dataset. Finally, we present a neural method for argument quality ranking, which outperforms several baselines on our own dataset, as well as previous methods published for another dataset.

We propose WIBA, a novel framework and suite of methods that enable the comprehensive understanding of "What Is Being Argued" across contexts. Our approach develops a comprehensive framework that detects: (a) the existence, (b) the topic, and (c) the stance of an argument, correctly accounting for the logical dependence among the three tasks. Our algorithm leverages the fine-tuning and prompt-engineering of Large Language Models. We evaluate our approach and show that it performs well in all the three capabilities. First, we develop and release an Argument Detection model that can classify a piece of text as an argument with an F1 score between 79% and 86% on three different benchmark datasets. Second, we release a language model that can identify the topic being argued in a sentence, be it implicit or explicit, with an average similarity score of 71%, outperforming current naive methods by nearly 40%. Finally, we develop a method for Argument Stance Classification, and evaluate the capability of our approach, showing it achieves a classification F1 score between 71% and 78% across three diverse benchmark datasets. Our evaluation demonstrates that WIBA allows the comprehensive understanding of What Is Being Argued in large corpora across diverse contexts, which is of core interest to many applications in linguistics, communication, and social and computer science. To facilitate accessibility to the advancements outlined in this work, we release WIBA as a free open access platform (wiba.dev).

The goal of dialogue relation extraction (DRE) is to identify the relation between two entities in a given dialogue. During conversations, speakers may expose their relations to certain entities by explicit or implicit clues, such evidences called "triggers". However, trigger annotations may not be always available for the target data, so it is challenging to leverage such information for enhancing the performance. Therefore, this paper proposes to learn how to identify triggers from the data with trigger annotations and then transfers the trigger-finding capability to other datasets for better performance. The experiments show that the proposed approach is capable of improving relation extraction performance of unseen relations and also demonstrate the transferability of our proposed trigger-finding model across different domains and datasets.

In this paper, we present our submission to the MM-ArgFallacy2025 shared task, which aims to advance research in multimodal argument mining, focusing on logical fallacies in political debates. Our approach uses pretrained Transformer-based models and proposes several ways to leverage context. In the fallacy classification subtask, our models achieved macro F1-scores of 0.4444 (text), 0.3559 (audio), and 0.4403 (multimodal). Our multimodal model showed performance comparable to the text-only model, suggesting potential for improvements.

Relations such as "is influenced by", "is known for" or "is a competitor of" are inherently graded: we can rank entity pairs based on how well they satisfy these relations, but it is hard to draw a line between those pairs that satisfy them and those that do not. Such graded relations play a central role in many applications, yet they are typically not covered by existing Knowledge Graphs. In this paper, we consider the possibility of using Large Language Models (LLMs) to fill this gap. To this end, we introduce a new benchmark, in which entity pairs have to be ranked according to how much they satisfy a given graded relation. The task is formulated as a few-shot ranking problem, where models only have access to a description of the relation and five prototypical instances. We use the proposed benchmark to evaluate state-of-the-art relation embedding strategies as well as several recent LLMs, covering both publicly available LLMs and closed models such as GPT-4. Overall, we find a strong correlation between model size and performance, with smaller Language Models struggling to outperform a naive baseline. The results of the largest Flan-T5 and OPT models are remarkably strong, although a clear gap with human performance remains.

Identifying, classifying, and analyzing arguments in legal discourse has been a prominent area of research since the inception of the argument mining field. However, there has been a major discrepancy between the way natural language processing (NLP) researchers model and annotate arguments in court decisions and the way legal experts understand and analyze legal argumentation. While computational approaches typically simplify arguments into generic premises and claims, arguments in legal research usually exhibit a rich typology that is important for gaining insights into the particular case and applications of law in general. We address this problem and make several substantial contributions to move the field forward. First, we design a new annotation scheme for legal arguments in proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that is deeply rooted in the theory and practice of legal argumentation research. Second, we compile and annotate a large corpus of 373 court decisions (2.3M tokens and 15k annotated argument spans). Finally, we train an argument mining model that outperforms state-of-the-art models in the legal NLP domain and provide a thorough expert-based evaluation. All datasets and source codes are available under open lincenses at https://github.com/trusthlt/mining-legal-arguments.

Peer reviewing is a central process in modern research and essential for ensuring high quality and reliability of published work. At the same time, it is a time-consuming process and increasing interest in emerging fields often results in a high review workload, especially for senior researchers in this area. How to cope with this problem is an open question and it is vividly discussed across all major conferences. In this work, we propose an Argument Mining based approach for the assistance of editors, meta-reviewers, and reviewers. We demonstrate that the decision process in the field of scientific publications is driven by arguments and automatic argument identification is helpful in various use-cases. One of our findings is that arguments used in the peer-review process differ from arguments in other domains making the transfer of pre-trained models difficult. Therefore, we provide the community with a new peer-review dataset from different computer science conferences with annotated arguments. In our extensive empirical evaluation, we show that Argument Mining can be used to efficiently extract the most relevant parts from reviews, which are paramount for the publication decision. The process remains interpretable since the extracted arguments can be highlighted in a review without detaching them from their context.

Traditionally, a debate usually requires a manual preparation process, including reading plenty of articles, selecting the claims, identifying the stances of the claims, seeking the evidence for the claims, etc. As the AI debate attracts more attention these years, it is worth exploring the methods to automate the tedious process involved in the debating system. In this work, we introduce a comprehensive and large dataset named IAM, which can be applied to a series of argument mining tasks, including claim extraction, stance classification, evidence extraction, etc. Our dataset is collected from over 1k articles related to 123 topics. Near 70k sentences in the dataset are fully annotated based on their argument properties (e.g., claims, stances, evidence, etc.). We further propose two new integrated argument mining tasks associated with the debate preparation process: (1) claim extraction with stance classification (CESC) and (2) claim-evidence pair extraction (CEPE). We adopt a pipeline approach and an end-to-end method for each integrated task separately. Promising experimental results are reported to show the values and challenges of our proposed tasks, and motivate future research on argument mining.

Research on causality extraction from text has so far almost entirely neglected counterclaims. Existing causality extraction datasets focus solely on "procausal" claims, i.e., statements that support a relationship. "Concausal" claims, i.e., statements that refute a relationship, are entirely ignored or even accidentally annotated as procausal. We address this shortcoming by developing a new dataset that integrates concausality. Based on an extensive literature review, we first show that concausality is an integral part of causal reasoning on incomplete knowledge. We operationalize this theory in the form of a rigorous guideline for annotation and then augment the Causal News Corpus with concausal statements, obtaining a substantial inter-annotator agreement of Cohen's κ=0.74. To demonstrate the importance of integrating concausal statements, we show that models trained without concausal relationships tend to misclassify these as procausal instead. Based on our new dataset, this mistake can be mitigated, enabling transformers to effectively distinguish pro- and concausality.

The same arguments often need to be evaluated under different external regimes. An agent with influence over the regime has a strategic lever that standard formalisms do not directly capture. We introduce context-dependent argumentation frameworks (CDAFs), an extension of Dung's theory in which a defeat function determines, per context, which attacks succeed. A perspective-labeled specialisation derives the defeat function from a relevance set ρ and a priority π. The relevance set is the agent's action space. In a small worked example, the agent's target argument is rejected under every full-relevance injective priority, yet accepted under partial activations, one of which no VAF audience can mirror. We define the corresponding decision problem, ACTIVATION-MANIPULATION, and record baseline complexity bounds. Tight bounds and multi-agent variants are left open.

Relational reasoning requires the process of perceptual understanding, comparing, and integrating the underlying relationships between concepts. This ability consists of multiple categories, such as analogical, structural, and cause-effect, each capturing a different aspect of higher-order understanding. To examine the performance of multimodal large language models (MLLM) on these relational inference tasks, we developed SciReC, a model-adaptive multimodal academic dialog benchmark. As the relational reasoning process involves multiple representations and various factors (visual understanding, exhibiting knowledge, and memory recall), we propose DMRA, a deficit-based diagnostic framework that quantifies the contribution of these components to identify the primary cause of unsuccessful cases. Claude 4.6 achieved the best performance on the overall relational score with 73\%, followed by GPT 5.4 with 68\%. Performance trends indicate that open-source models achieve their lowest scores on spatial relations, while proprietary models struggle more with hierarchical and sequential relations. Across domains, model performance is lowest on Astronomy and highest on Psychology. The results of DMRA reveal that relational reasoning is the primary source of error across all models, followed by memory limitations.

Analogical reasoning is at the core of human cognition, serving as an important foundation for a variety of intellectual activities. While prior work has shown that LLMs can represent task patterns and surface-level concepts, it remains unclear whether these models can encode high-level relational concepts and apply them to novel situations through structured comparisons. In this work, we explore this fundamental aspect using proportional and story analogies, and identify three key findings. First, LLMs effectively encode the underlying relationships between analogous entities; both attributive and relational information propagate through mid-upper layers in correct cases, whereas reasoning failures reflect missing relational information within these layers. Second, unlike humans, LLMs often struggle not only when relational information is missing, but also when attempting to apply it to new entities. In such cases, strategically patching hidden representations at critical token positions can facilitate information transfer to a certain extent. Lastly, successful analogical reasoning in LLMs is marked by strong structural alignment between analogous situations, whereas failures often reflect degraded or misplaced alignment. Overall, our findings reveal that LLMs exhibit emerging but limited capabilities in encoding and applying high-level relational concepts, highlighting both parallels and gaps with human cognition.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit sycophancy, distorting responses to align with user beliefs, notably by readily agreeing with user counterarguments. Paradoxically, LLMs are increasingly adopted as successful evaluative agents for tasks such as grading and adjudicating claims. This research investigates that tension: why do LLMs show sycophancy when challenged in subsequent conversational turns, yet perform well when evaluating conflicting arguments presented simultaneously? We empirically tested these contrasting scenarios by varying key interaction patterns. We find that state-of-the-art models: (1) are more likely to endorse a user's counterargument when framed as a follow-up from a user, rather than when both responses are presented simultaneously for evaluation; (2) show increased susceptibility to persuasion when the user's rebuttal includes detailed reasoning, even when the conclusion of the reasoning is incorrect; and (3) are more readily swayed by casually phrased feedback than by formal critiques, even when the casual input lacks justification. Our results highlight the risk of relying on LLMs for judgment tasks without accounting for conversational framing.

Neural Networks are indispensable to natural sciences and society. Their impact extends from applications in public health to workforce productivity. Here, we introduce Modal Logic Neural Networks (MLNNs) -- an end-to-end differentiable logical neural network realisation of modal logic which evaluates a learnable truth function across possible-world semantics. This neural architecture handles para-consistency and inconsistency via a learnable world accessibility relation and valuation function. Because the modality is fixed by which frame axioms the relation satisfies rather than by the operator, one differentiable engine covers the epistemic, doxastic, deontic and temporal readings, with applications from verification of reactive and distributed systems to legal discourse and microeconomic utility models. In this paper, we introduce a model of differentiable Kripke semantics, and establish their soundness, convergence, and structural guarantees. We show four applications, in which the learned relation reads as a trust matrix, an operating-regime embedding with safety bounds, a temporal precedence order, and a recovered constraint graph.

AI has become pervasive in recent years, but state-of-the-art approaches predominantly neglect the need for AI systems to be contestable. Instead, contestability is advocated by AI guidelines (e.g. by the OECD) and regulation of automated decision-making (e.g. GDPR). In this position paper we explore how contestability can be achieved computationally in and for AI. We argue that contestable AI requires dynamic (human-machine and/or machine-machine) explainability and decision-making processes, whereby machines can (i) interact with humans and/or other machines to progressively explain their outputs and/or their reasoning as well as assess grounds for contestation provided by these humans and/or other machines, and (ii) revise their decision-making processes to redress any issues successfully raised during contestation. Given that much of the current AI landscape is tailored to static AIs, the need to accommodate contestability will require a radical rethinking, that, we argue, computational argumentation is ideally suited to support.

Despite the remarkable performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in natural language processing tasks, they still struggle with generating logically sound arguments, resulting in potential risks such as spreading misinformation. To address this issue, we introduce FIPO, a fallacy-informed framework that leverages preference optimization methods to steer LLMs toward logically sound arguments. FIPO includes a classification loss, to capture the fine-grained information on fallacy types. Our results on argumentation datasets show that our method reduces the fallacy errors by up to 17.5%. Furthermore, our human evaluation results indicate that the quality of the generated arguments by our method significantly outperforms the fine-tuned baselines, as well as other preference optimization methods, such as DPO. These findings highlight the importance of ensuring models are aware of logical fallacies for effective argument generation. Our code is available at github.com/lucamouchel/Logical-Fallacies.

Due to the absence of explicit connectives, implicit discourse relation recognition (IDRR) remains a challenging task in discourse analysis. The critical step for IDRR is to learn high-quality discourse relation representations between two arguments. Recent methods tend to integrate the whole hierarchical information of senses into discourse relation representations for multi-level sense recognition. Nevertheless, they insufficiently incorporate the static hierarchical structure containing all senses (defined as global hierarchy), and ignore the hierarchical sense label sequence corresponding to each instance (defined as local hierarchy). For the purpose of sufficiently exploiting global and local hierarchies of senses to learn better discourse relation representations, we propose a novel GlObal and Local Hierarchy-aware Contrastive Framework (GOLF), to model two kinds of hierarchies with the aid of multi-task learning and contrastive learning. Experimental results on PDTB 2.0 and PDTB 3.0 datasets demonstrate that our method remarkably outperforms current state-of-the-art models at all hierarchical levels. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/YJiangcm/GOLF_for_IDRR

We present the first human-annotated dialogue-based relation extraction (RE) dataset DialogRE, aiming to support the prediction of relation(s) between two arguments that appear in a dialogue. We further offer DialogRE as a platform for studying cross-sentence RE as most facts span multiple sentences. We argue that speaker-related information plays a critical role in the proposed task, based on an analysis of similarities and differences between dialogue-based and traditional RE tasks. Considering the timeliness of communication in a dialogue, we design a new metric to evaluate the performance of RE methods in a conversational setting and investigate the performance of several representative RE methods on DialogRE. Experimental results demonstrate that a speaker-aware extension on the best-performing model leads to gains in both the standard and conversational evaluation settings. DialogRE is available at https://dataset.org/dialogre/.

A prominent challenge for modern language understanding systems is the ability to answer implicit reasoning questions, where the required reasoning steps for answering the question are not mentioned in the text explicitly. In this work, we investigate why current models struggle with implicit reasoning question answering (QA) tasks, by decoupling inference of reasoning steps from their execution. We define a new task of implicit relation inference and construct a benchmark, IMPLICITRELATIONS, where given a question, a model should output a list of concept-relation pairs, where the relations describe the implicit reasoning steps required for answering the question. Using IMPLICITRELATIONS, we evaluate models from the GPT-3 family and find that, while these models struggle on the implicit reasoning QA task, they often succeed at inferring implicit relations. This suggests that the challenge in implicit reasoning questions does not stem from the need to plan a reasoning strategy alone, but to do it while also retrieving and reasoning over relevant information.

Customized image generation is crucial for delivering personalized content based on user-provided image prompts, aligning large-scale text-to-image diffusion models with individual needs. However, existing models often overlook the relationships between customized objects in generated images. Instead, this work addresses that gap by focusing on relation-aware customized image generation, which aims to preserve the identities from image prompts while maintaining the predicate relations described in text prompts. Specifically, we introduce RelationBooth, a framework that disentangles identity and relation learning through a well-curated dataset. Our training data consists of relation-specific images, independent object images containing identity information, and text prompts to guide relation generation. Then, we propose two key modules to tackle the two main challenges: generating accurate and natural relations, especially when significant pose adjustments are required, and avoiding object confusion in cases of overlap. First, we introduce a keypoint matching loss that effectively guides the model in adjusting object poses closely tied to their relationships. Second, we incorporate local features from the image prompts to better distinguish between objects, preventing confusion in overlapping cases. Extensive results on three benchmarks demonstrate the superiority of RelationBooth in generating precise relations while preserving object identities across a diverse set of objects and relations. The source code and trained models will be made available to the public.

Reasoning is central to human intelligence. However, fallacious arguments are common, and some exacerbate problems such as spreading misinformation about climate change. In this paper, we propose the task of logical fallacy detection, and provide a new dataset (Logic) of logical fallacies generally found in text, together with an additional challenge set for detecting logical fallacies in climate change claims (LogicClimate). Detecting logical fallacies is a hard problem as the model must understand the underlying logical structure of the argument. We find that existing pretrained large language models perform poorly on this task. In contrast, we show that a simple structure-aware classifier outperforms the best language model by 5.46% on Logic and 4.51% on LogicClimate. We encourage future work to explore this task as (a) it can serve as a new reasoning challenge for language models, and (b) it can have potential applications in tackling the spread of misinformation. Our dataset and code are available at https://github.com/causalNLP/logical-fallacy

Diffusion models gain increasing popularity for their generative capabilities. Recently, there have been surging needs to generate customized images by inverting diffusion models from exemplar images. However, existing inversion methods mainly focus on capturing object appearances. How to invert object relations, another important pillar in the visual world, remains unexplored. In this work, we propose ReVersion for the Relation Inversion task, which aims to learn a specific relation (represented as "relation prompt") from exemplar images. Specifically, we learn a relation prompt from a frozen pre-trained text-to-image diffusion model. The learned relation prompt can then be applied to generate relation-specific images with new objects, backgrounds, and styles. Our key insight is the "preposition prior" - real-world relation prompts can be sparsely activated upon a set of basis prepositional words. Specifically, we propose a novel relation-steering contrastive learning scheme to impose two critical properties of the relation prompt: 1) The relation prompt should capture the interaction between objects, enforced by the preposition prior. 2) The relation prompt should be disentangled away from object appearances. We further devise relation-focal importance sampling to emphasize high-level interactions over low-level appearances (e.g., texture, color). To comprehensively evaluate this new task, we contribute ReVersion Benchmark, which provides various exemplar images with diverse relations. Extensive experiments validate the superiority of our approach over existing methods across a wide range of visual relations.

Existing datasets for narrative understanding often fail to represent the complexity and uncertainty of relationships in real-life social scenarios. To address this gap, we introduce a new benchmark, Conan, designed for extracting and analysing intricate character relation graphs from detective narratives. Specifically, we designed hierarchical relationship categories and manually extracted and annotated role-oriented relationships from the perspectives of various characters, incorporating both public relationships known to most characters and secret ones known to only a few. Our experiments with advanced Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Llama2 reveal their limitations in inferencing complex relationships and handling longer narratives. The combination of the Conan dataset and our pipeline strategy is geared towards understanding the ability of LLMs to comprehend nuanced relational dynamics in narrative contexts.

With the exponential growth of research facilitated by modern technology and improved accessibility, scientific discoveries have become increasingly fragmented within and across fields. This makes it challenging to assess the significance, novelty, incremental findings, and equivalent ideas between related works, particularly those from different research communities. Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated strong quantitative and qualitative reasoning abilities, and multi-agent LLM debates have shown promise in handling complex reasoning tasks by exploring diverse perspectives and reasoning paths. Inspired by this, we introduce Tree-of-Debate (ToD), a framework which converts scientific papers into LLM personas that debate their respective novelties. To emphasize structured, critical reasoning rather than focusing solely on outcomes, ToD dynamically constructs a debate tree, enabling fine-grained analysis of independent novelty arguments within scholarly articles. Through experiments on scientific literature across various domains, evaluated by expert researchers, we demonstrate that ToD generates informative arguments, effectively contrasts papers, and supports researchers in their literature review.

Large language models (LLMs), while promising, face criticisms for biases, hallucinations, and a lack of reasoning capability. This paper introduces SocraSynth, a multi-LLM agent reasoning platform developed to mitigate these issues. SocraSynth utilizes conditional statistics and systematic context enhancement through continuous arguments, alongside adjustable debate contentiousness levels. The platform typically involves a human moderator and two LLM agents representing opposing viewpoints on a given subject. SocraSynth operates in two main phases: knowledge generation and reasoning evaluation. In the knowledge generation phase, the moderator defines the debate topic and contentiousness level, prompting the agents to formulate supporting arguments for their respective stances. The reasoning evaluation phase then employs Socratic reasoning and formal logic principles to appraise the quality of the arguments presented. The dialogue concludes with the moderator adjusting the contentiousness from confrontational to collaborative, gathering final, conciliatory remarks to aid in human reasoning and decision-making. Through case studies in three distinct application domains, this paper showcases SocraSynth's effectiveness in fostering rigorous research, dynamic reasoning, comprehensive assessment, and enhanced collaboration. This underscores the value of multi-agent interactions in leveraging LLMs for advanced knowledge extraction and decision-making support.

To think critically about arguments, human learners are trained to identify, reconstruct, and evaluate arguments. Argument reconstruction is especially important because it makes an argument's underlying inferences explicit. However, it remains unclear whether LLMs can similarly enhance their critical thinking ability by learning to reconstruct arguments. To address this question, we introduce a holistic framework with three contributions. We (1) propose an engine that automatically reconstructs arbitrary arguments (GAAR), (2) synthesize a new high-quality argument reconstruction dataset (Arguinas) using the GAAR engine, and (3) investigate whether learning argument reconstruction benefits downstream critical thinking tasks. Our experimental results show that, across seven critical thinking tasks, models trained to learn argument reconstruction outperform models that do not, with the largest performance gains observed when training on the proposed Arguinas dataset. The source code and dataset will be publicly available.

Relational reasoning is a central component of generally intelligent behavior, but has proven difficult for neural networks to learn. In this paper we describe how to use Relation Networks (RNs) as a simple plug-and-play module to solve problems that fundamentally hinge on relational reasoning. We tested RN-augmented networks on three tasks: visual question answering using a challenging dataset called CLEVR, on which we achieve state-of-the-art, super-human performance; text-based question answering using the bAbI suite of tasks; and complex reasoning about dynamic physical systems. Then, using a curated dataset called Sort-of-CLEVR we show that powerful convolutional networks do not have a general capacity to solve relational questions, but can gain this capacity when augmented with RNs. Our work shows how a deep learning architecture equipped with an RN module can implicitly discover and learn to reason about entities and their relations.

Prior work in Argument Mining frequently alludes to its potential applications in automatic debating systems. Despite this focus, almost no datasets or models exist which apply natural language processing techniques to problems found within competitive formal debate. To remedy this, we present the DebateSum dataset. DebateSum consists of 187,386 unique pieces of evidence with corresponding argument and extractive summaries. DebateSum was made using data compiled by competitors within the National Speech and Debate Association over a 7-year period. We train several transformer summarization models to benchmark summarization performance on DebateSum. We also introduce a set of fasttext word-vectors trained on DebateSum called debate2vec. Finally, we present a search engine for this dataset which is utilized extensively by members of the National Speech and Debate Association today. The DebateSum search engine is available to the public here: http://www.debate.cards

This work addresses two important questions pertinent to Relation Extraction (RE). First, what are all possible relations that could exist between any two given entity types? Second, how do we define an unambiguous taxonomical (is-a) hierarchy among the identified relations? To address the first question, we use three resources Wikipedia Infobox, Wikidata, and DBpedia. This study focuses on relations between person, organization and location entity types. We exploit Wikidata and DBpedia in a data-driven manner, and Wikipedia Infobox templates manually to generate lists of relations. Further, to address the second question, we canonicalize, filter, and combine the identified relations from the three resources to construct a taxonomical hierarchy. This hierarchy contains 623 canonical relations with highest contribution from Wikipedia Infobox followed by DBpedia and Wikidata. The generated relation list subsumes an average of 85% of relations from RE datasets when entity types are restricted.

Writing persuasive arguments is a challenging task for both humans and machines. It entails incorporating high-level beliefs from various perspectives on the topic, along with deliberate reasoning and planning to construct a coherent narrative. Current language models often generate surface tokens autoregressively, lacking explicit integration of these underlying controls, resulting in limited output diversity and coherence. In this work, we propose a persona-based multi-agent framework for argument writing. Inspired by the human debate, we first assign each agent a persona representing its high-level beliefs from a unique perspective, and then design an agent interaction process so that the agents can collaboratively debate and discuss the idea to form an overall plan for argument writing. Such debate process enables fluid and nonlinear development of ideas. We evaluate our framework on argumentative essay writing. The results show that our framework can generate more diverse and persuasive arguments through both automatic and human evaluations.

Controversy is a reflection of our zeitgeist, and an important aspect to any discourse. The rise of large language models (LLMs) as conversational systems has increased public reliance on these systems for answers to their various questions. Consequently, it is crucial to systematically examine how these models respond to questions that pertaining to ongoing debates. However, few such datasets exist in providing human-annotated labels reflecting the contemporary discussions. To foster research in this area, we propose a novel construction of a controversial questions dataset, expanding upon the publicly released Quora Question Pairs Dataset. This dataset presents challenges concerning knowledge recency, safety, fairness, and bias. We evaluate different LLMs using a subset of this dataset, illuminating how they handle controversial issues and the stances they adopt. This research ultimately contributes to our understanding of LLMs' interaction with controversial issues, paving the way for improvements in their comprehension and handling of complex societal debates.

When people reason about cause and effect, they often consider many competing "what if" scenarios before deciding which explanation fits best. Analogously, advanced language models capable of causal inference can consider multiple interventions and counterfactuals to judge the validity of causal claims. Crucially, this type of reasoning is less like a single calculation and more like an internal dialogue between alternative hypotheses. In this paper, we make this dialogue explicit through a dual-agent debate framework where one model provides a structured causal inference, and the other critically examines this reasoning for logical flaws. When disagreements arise, agents attempt to persuade each other, challenging each other's logic and revising their conclusions until they converge on a mutually agreed answer. To take advantage of this deliberative process, we specifically use reasoning language models, whose strengths in both causal inference and adversarial debate remain under-explored relative to standard large language models. We evaluate our approach on the CLadder dataset, a benchmark linking natural language questions to formally defined causal graphs across all three rungs of Pearl's ladder of causation. With Qwen3 and DeepSeek-R1 as debater agents, we demonstrate that multi-agent debate improves DeepSeek-R1's overall accuracy in causal inference from 78.03% to 87.45%, with the counterfactual category specifically improving from 67.94% to 80.04% accuracy. Similarly, Qwen3's overall accuracy improves from 84.16% to 89.41%, and counterfactual questions from 71.53% to 80.35%, showing that strong models can still benefit greatly from debate with weaker agents. Our results highlight the potential of reasoning models as building blocks for multi-agent systems in causal inference, and demonstrate the importance of diverse perspectives in causal problem-solving.

Exploiting large language models (LLMs) to tackle deductive reasoning has garnered growing attention. It still remains highly challenging to achieve satisfactory results in complex deductive problems, characterized by plenty of premises (i.e., facts or rules) entailing intricate relationships among entities and requiring multi-hop reasoning. One intuitive solution is to decompose the original task into smaller sub-tasks, and then chain the multiple casual reasoning steps together in a forward (e.g., Selection-Inference) or backward (e.g., LAMBADA) direction. However, these techniques inevitably necessitate a large number of overall stages, leading to computationally expensive operations and a higher possibility of making misleading steps. In addition to stage-by-stage decomposition, we draw inspiration from another aspect of human problem-solving. Humans tend to distill the most relevant information and organize their thoughts systematically (e.g., creating mind maps), which assists them in answering questions or drawing conclusions precisely and quickly. In light of this, we propose a novel reasoning approach named Concise and Organized Perception (COP). COP carefully analyzes the given statements to efficiently identify the most pertinent information while eliminating redundancy. It then prompts the LLMs in a more organized form that adapts to the model's inference process. By perceiving concise and organized proofs, the deductive reasoning abilities of LLMs can be better elicited, and the risk of acquiring errors caused by excessive reasoning stages is mitigated. Furthermore, our approach can be combined with the aforementioned ones to further boost their performance. Extensive experimental results on three popular deductive benchmarks (i.e., ProofWriter, PrOntoQA and PrOntoQA-OOD) show that COP significantly outperforms previous state-of-the-art methods.

This paper introduces a framework for relation extraction (RE) that enhances both accuracy and explainability. The framework has two key components: (i) a reasoning mechanism that formulates relation extraction as a series of text-processing steps inspired by cognitive science, and (ii) an optimization process driven by reinforcement learning (RL) with a novel reward function designed to improve both task accuracy and explanation quality. We call our approach CogRE. Our framework addresses the lack of supervision for language-based explanations in traditional RE by promoting outputs that include important relation keywords. These keywords are drawn from a high-quality dictionary that is automatically constructed using an LLM. We evaluate our approach for the task of one-shot RE using two LLMs and two RE datasets. Our experiments show that CogRE improves explanation quality by addressing two common failure patterns in one-shot RE: poor attention focus and limited one-shot learning capability. For example, our cognitive-structured reasoning with Qwen2.5-15B-Instruct on One-shot NYT29 achieves 24.65% F1, surpassing prior reasoning-based designs. Optimizing this approach with RL using our reward further improves performance by +23.46% (absolute). Finally, human evaluation shows that our best model generates relational keywords closely aligned with gold labels, increasing human explanation quality ratings by 54% (relative).

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enhances large language models by incorporating external knowledge, yet suffers from critical limitations in high-stakes domains -- namely, sensitivity to noisy or contradictory evidence and opaque, stochastic decision-making. We propose ArgRAG, an explainable, and contestable alternative that replaces black-box reasoning with structured inference using a Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework (QBAF). ArgRAG constructs a QBAF from retrieved documents and performs deterministic reasoning under gradual semantics. This allows faithfully explaining and contesting decisions. Evaluated on two fact verification benchmarks, PubHealth and RAGuard, ArgRAG achieves strong accuracy while significantly improving transparency.

The advent of pre-trained Language Models (LMs) has markedly advanced natural language processing, but their efficacy in out-of-distribution (OOD) scenarios remains a significant challenge. Computational argumentation (CA), modeling human argumentation processes, is a field notably impacted by these challenges because complex annotation schemes and high annotation costs naturally lead to resources barely covering the multiplicity of available text sources and topics. Due to this data scarcity, generalization to data from uncovered covariant distributions is a common challenge for CA tasks like stance detection or argument classification. This work systematically assesses LMs' capabilities for such OOD scenarios. While previous work targets specific OOD types like topic shifts or OOD uniformly, we address three prevalent OOD scenarios in CA: topic shift, domain shift, and language shift. Our findings challenge the previously asserted general superiority of in-context learning (ICL) for OOD. We find that the efficacy of such learning paradigms varies with the type of OOD. Specifically, while ICL excels for domain shifts, prompt-based fine-tuning surpasses for topic shifts. To sum up, we navigate the heterogeneity of OOD scenarios in CA and empirically underscore the potential of base-sized LMs in overcoming these challenges.

The ability to generate counterarguments is important for critical thinking and balanced discourse, yet existing approaches typically produce only a single counterargument, failing to capture the diversity and persuasiveness required in real-world debates. To address this limitation, we propose Persona-guided Tree-based Counterargument Generation (PTCG), a framework that combines Tree-of-Thoughts-inspired step-wise generation and pruning with speaker persona selection. By estimating the author's persona from the original argument and incorporating speaker personas representing distinct perspectives, PTCG operationalizes perspective-taking and enables the generation of diverse counterarguments. Results from LLM-as-a-Judge, classifier-based assessment, and human evaluations indicate that PTCG shows consistent improvements in both the diversity and persuasiveness of counterarguments compared to baseline methods.

Spatial relations are a basic part of human cognition. However, they are expressed in natural language in a variety of ways, and previous work has suggested that current vision-and-language models (VLMs) struggle to capture relational information. In this paper, we present Visual Spatial Reasoning (VSR), a dataset containing more than 10k natural text-image pairs with 65 types of spatial relations in English (such as: under, in front of, and facing). While using a seemingly simple annotation format, we show how the dataset includes challenging linguistic phenomena, such as varying reference frames. We demonstrate a large gap between human and model performance: the human ceiling is above 95%, while state-of-the-art models only achieve around 70%. We observe that VLMs' by-relation performances have little correlation with the number of training examples and the tested models are in general incapable of recognising relations concerning the orientations of objects.

Optimizing the phrasing of argumentative text is crucial in higher education and professional development. However, assessing whether and how the different claims in a text should be revised is a hard task, especially for novice writers. In this work, we explore the main challenges to identifying argumentative claims in need of specific revisions. By learning from collaborative editing behaviors in online debates, we seek to capture implicit revision patterns in order to develop approaches aimed at guiding writers in how to further improve their arguments. We systematically compare the ability of common word embedding models to capture the differences between different versions of the same text, and we analyze their impact on various types of writing issues. To deal with the noisy nature of revision-based corpora, we propose a new sampling strategy based on revision distance. Opposed to approaches from prior work, such sampling can be done without employing additional annotations and judgments. Moreover, we provide evidence that using contextual information and domain knowledge can further improve prediction results. How useful a certain type of context is, depends on the issue the claim is suffering from, though.

The social and implicit nature of human communication ramifies readers' understandings of written sentences. Single gold-standard interpretations rarely exist, challenging conventional assumptions in natural language processing. This work introduces the interpretation modeling (IM) task which involves modeling several interpretations of a sentence's underlying semantics to unearth layers of implicit meaning. To obtain these, IM is guided by multiple annotations of social relation and common ground - in this work approximated by reader attitudes towards the author and their understanding of moral judgments subtly embedded in the sentence. We propose a number of modeling strategies that rely on one-to-one and one-to-many generation methods that take inspiration from the philosophical study of interpretation. A first-of-its-kind IM dataset is curated to support experiments and analyses. The modeling results, coupled with scrutiny of the dataset, underline the challenges of IM as conflicting and complex interpretations are socially plausible. This interplay of diverse readings is affirmed by automated and human evaluations on the generated interpretations. Finally, toxicity analyses in the generated interpretations demonstrate the importance of IM for refining filters of content and assisting content moderators in safeguarding the safety in online discourse.

Equipping agents with the capacity to justify made decisions using supporting evidence represents a cornerstone of accountable decision-making. Furthermore, ensuring that justifications are in line with human expectations and societal norms is vital, especially in high-stakes situations such as healthcare. In this work, we propose the use of a debate-based reward model for reinforcement learning agents, where the outcome of a zero-sum debate game quantifies the justifiability of a decision in a particular state. This reward model is then used to train a justifiable policy, whose decisions can be more easily corroborated with supporting evidence. In the debate game, two argumentative agents take turns providing supporting evidence for two competing decisions. Given the proposed evidence, a proxy of a human judge evaluates which decision is better justified. We demonstrate the potential of our approach in learning policies for prescribing and justifying treatment decisions of septic patients. We show that augmenting the reward with the feedback signal generated by the debate-based reward model yields policies highly favored by the judge when compared to the policy obtained solely from the environment rewards, while hardly sacrificing any performance. Moreover, in terms of the overall performance and justifiability of trained policies, the debate-based feedback is comparable to the feedback obtained from an ideal judge proxy that evaluates decisions using the full information encoded in the state. This suggests that the debate game outputs key information contained in states that is most relevant for evaluating decisions, which in turn substantiates the practicality of combining our approach with human-in-the-loop evaluations. Lastly, we showcase that agents trained via multi-agent debate learn to propose evidence that is resilient to refutations and closely aligns with human preferences.

Annotator disagreement is ubiquitous in natural language processing (NLP) tasks. There are multiple reasons for such disagreements, including the subjectivity of the task, difficult cases, unclear guidelines, and so on. Rather than simply aggregating labels to obtain data annotations, we instead try to directly model the diverse perspectives of the annotators, and explicitly account for annotators' idiosyncrasies in the modeling process by creating representations for each annotator (annotator embeddings) and also their annotations (annotation embeddings). In addition, we propose TID-8, The Inherent Disagreement - 8 dataset, a benchmark that consists of eight existing language understanding datasets that have inherent annotator disagreement. We test our approach on TID-8 and show that our approach helps models learn significantly better from disagreements on six different datasets in TID-8 while increasing model size by fewer than 1% parameters. By capturing the unique tendencies and subjectivity of individual annotators through embeddings, our representations prime AI models to be inclusive of diverse viewpoints.

Despite the recent successes of deep learning, such models are still far from some human abilities like learning from few examples, reasoning and explaining decisions. In this paper, we focus on organ annotation in medical images and we introduce a reasoning framework that is based on learning fuzzy relations on a small dataset for generating explanations. Given a catalogue of relations, it efficiently induces the most relevant relations and combines them for building constraints in order to both solve the organ annotation task and generate explanations. We test our approach on a publicly available dataset of medical images where several organs are already segmented. A demonstration of our model is proposed with an example of explained annotations. It was trained on a small training set containing as few as a couple of examples.

Retrieval-augmented language models are being increasingly tasked with subjective, contentious, and conflicting queries such as "is aspartame linked to cancer". To resolve these ambiguous queries, one must search through a large range of websites and consider "which, if any, of this evidence do I find convincing?". In this work, we study how LLMs answer this question. In particular, we construct ConflictingQA, a dataset that pairs controversial queries with a series of real-world evidence documents that contain different facts (e.g., quantitative results), argument styles (e.g., appeals to authority), and answers (Yes or No). We use this dataset to perform sensitivity and counterfactual analyses to explore which text features most affect LLM predictions. Overall, we find that current models rely heavily on the relevance of a website to the query, while largely ignoring stylistic features that humans find important such as whether a text contains scientific references or is written with a neutral tone. Taken together, these results highlight the importance of RAG corpus quality (e.g., the need to filter misinformation), and possibly even a shift in how LLMs are trained to better align with human judgements.

Large Language Models (LLMs) may suffer from hallucinations in real-world applications due to the lack of relevant knowledge. In contrast, knowledge graphs encompass extensive, multi-relational structures that store a vast array of symbolic facts. Consequently, integrating LLMs with knowledge graphs has been extensively explored, with Knowledge Graph Question Answering (KGQA) serving as a critical touchstone for the integration. This task requires LLMs to answer natural language questions by retrieving relevant triples from knowledge graphs. However, existing methods face two significant challenges: excessively long reasoning paths distracting from the answer generation, and false-positive relations hindering the path refinement. In this paper, we propose an iterative interactive KGQA framework that leverages the interactive learning capabilities of LLMs to perform reasoning and Debating over Graphs (DoG). Specifically, DoG employs a subgraph-focusing mechanism, allowing LLMs to perform answer trying after each reasoning step, thereby mitigating the impact of lengthy reasoning paths. On the other hand, DoG utilizes a multi-role debate team to gradually simplify complex questions, reducing the influence of false-positive relations. This debate mechanism ensures the reliability of the reasoning process. Experimental results on five public datasets demonstrate the effectiveness and superiority of our architecture. Notably, DoG outperforms the state-of-the-art method ToG by 23.7\% and 9.1\% in accuracy on WebQuestions and GrailQA, respectively. Furthermore, the integration experiments with various LLMs on the mentioned datasets highlight the flexibility of DoG. Code is available at https://github.com/reml-group/DoG.

Social relation reasoning aims to identify relation categories such as friends, spouses, and colleagues from images. While current methods adopt the paradigm of training a dedicated network end-to-end using labeled image data, they are limited in terms of generalizability and interpretability. To address these issues, we first present a simple yet well-crafted framework named {\name}, which combines the perception capability of Vision Foundation Models (VFMs) and the reasoning capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) within a modular framework, providing a strong baseline for social relation recognition. Specifically, we instruct VFMs to translate image content into a textual social story, and then utilize LLMs for text-based reasoning. {\name} introduces systematic design principles to adapt VFMs and LLMs separately and bridge their gaps. Without additional model training, it achieves competitive zero-shot results on two databases while offering interpretable answers, as LLMs can generate language-based explanations for the decisions. The manual prompt design process for LLMs at the reasoning phase is tedious and an automated prompt optimization method is desired. As we essentially convert a visual classification task into a generative task of LLMs, automatic prompt optimization encounters a unique long prompt optimization issue. To address this issue, we further propose the Greedy Segment Prompt Optimization (GSPO), which performs a greedy search by utilizing gradient information at the segment level. Experimental results show that GSPO significantly improves performance, and our method also generalizes to different image styles. The code is available at https://github.com/Mengzibin/SocialGPT.

Inter-personal relationship is the basis of human society. In order to automatically identify the relations between persons from texts, we need annotated data for training systems. However, there is a lack of a massive amount of such data so far. To address this situation, we introduce IPRE, a new dataset for inter-personal relationship extraction which aims to facilitate information extraction and knowledge graph construction research. In total, IPRE has over 41,000 labeled sentences for 34 types of relations, including about 9,000 sentences annotated by workers. Our data is the first dataset for inter-personal relationship extraction. Additionally, we define three evaluation tasks based on IPRE and provide the baseline systems for further comparison in future work.

Moral sensitivity is fundamental to human moral competence, as it guides individuals in regulating everyday behavior. Although many approaches seek to align large language models (LLMs) with human moral values, how to enable them morally sensitive has been extremely challenging. In this paper, we take a step toward answering the question: how can we enhance moral sensitivity in LLMs? Specifically, we propose two pragmatic inference methods that faciliate LLMs to diagnose morally benign and hazardous input and correct moral errors, whereby enhancing LLMs' moral sensitivity. A central strength of our pragmatic inference methods is their unified perspective: instead of modeling moral discourses across semantically diverse and complex surface forms, they offer a principled perspective for designing pragmatic inference procedures grounded in their inferential loads. Empirical evidence demonstrates that our pragmatic methods can enhance moral sensitivity in LLMs and achieves strong performance on representative morality-relevant benchmarks.

Language builds discourse contexts other than the actual: a painting, a belief, a memory, a hypothetical. Each is a mental space in which the same entity can take a different value, as when a flower is red in reality but purple in a portrait. Formal semantics keeps these contexts apart because their logics differ (modal, temporal, doxastic, depictive); Fauconnier's mental-space theory treats them as one space-building operation. We ask which of these a transformer language model implements, and find a mechanistic version of Fauconnier's unification. The model uses one router/slot format across the inventory: a reusable value slot stores attributed content, and a causally manipulable router (the space index) selects which space is read. A subspace trained with Distributed Alignment Search to control one space type, counterfactual, belief, fictional, or temporal, also controls the others, well above a random floor, on three model families; belief, which formal semantics marks as a distinct case, is not specially separated. The router is low-rank, composes additively with entity identity, and acts through a few late-layer heads. Two further results show the mechanism drives inference and composes: a subspace trained on a rule-derived conclusion flips what the model infers while dissociating from what it reports, and composing space-builders mints a fresh router over the shared slot. This paper establishes the cross-type generality. A companion paper develops belief in depth, because of its special status in philosophy, psychology, and linguistics (epistemology, theory of mind, and propositional attitude reports).

Language serves as a vehicle for conveying thought, enabling communication among individuals. The ability to distinguish between diverse concepts, identify fairness and injustice, and comprehend a range of legal notions fundamentally relies on logical reasoning. Large Language Models (LLMs) attempt to emulate human language understanding and generation, but their competency in logical reasoning remains limited. This paper seeks to address the philosophical question: How can we effectively teach logical reasoning to LLMs while maintaining a deep understanding of the intricate relationship between language and logic? By focusing on bolstering LLMs' capabilities in logical reasoning, we aim to expand their applicability in law and other logic-intensive disciplines. To this end, we propose a Reinforcement Learning from Logical Feedback (RLLF) approach, which serves as a potential framework for refining LLMs' reasoning capacities. Through RLLF and a revised evaluation methodology, we explore new avenues for research in this domain and contribute to the development of LLMs capable of handling complex legal reasoning tasks while acknowledging the fundamental connection between language and logic.

In large language models (LLMs), certain neurons can store distinct pieces of knowledge learned during pretraining. While knowledge typically appears as a combination of relations and entities, it remains unclear whether some neurons focus on a relation itself -- independent of any entity. We hypothesize such neurons detect a relation in the input text and guide generation involving such a relation. To investigate this, we study the Llama-2 family on a chosen set of relations with a statistics-based method. Our experiments demonstrate the existence of relation-specific neurons. We measure the effect of selectively deactivating candidate neurons specific to relation r on the LLM's ability to handle (1) facts whose relation is r and (2) facts whose relation is a different relation r' neq r. With respect to their capacity for encoding relation information, we give evidence for the following three properties of relation-specific neurons. (i) Neuron cumulativity. The neurons for r present a cumulative effect so that deactivating a larger portion of them results in the degradation of more facts in r. (ii) Neuron versatility. Neurons can be shared across multiple closely related as well as less related relations. Some relation neurons transfer across languages. (iii) Neuron interference. Deactivating neurons specific to one relation can improve LLM generation performance for facts of other relations. We will make our code publicly available at https://github.com/cisnlp/relation-specific-neurons.

Presenting high-level arguments is a crucial task for fostering participation in online societal discussions. Current argument summarization approaches miss an important facet of this task -- capturing diversity -- which is important for accommodating multiple perspectives. We introduce three aspects of diversity: those of opinions, annotators, and sources. We evaluate approaches to a popular argument summarization task called Key Point Analysis, which shows how these approaches struggle to (1) represent arguments shared by few people, (2) deal with data from various sources, and (3) align with subjectivity in human-provided annotations. We find that both general-purpose LLMs and dedicated KPA models exhibit this behavior, but have complementary strengths. Further, we observe that diversification of training data may ameliorate generalization. Addressing diversity in argument summarization requires a mix of strategies to deal with subjectivity.

We propose to extract meaning representations from autoregressive language models by considering the distribution of all possible trajectories extending an input text. This strategy is prompt-free, does not require fine-tuning, and is applicable to any pre-trained autoregressive model. Moreover, unlike vector-based representations, distribution-based representations can also model asymmetric relations (e.g., direction of logical entailment, hypernym/hyponym relations) by using algebraic operations between likelihood functions. These ideas are grounded in distributional perspectives on semantics and are connected to standard constructions in automata theory, but to our knowledge they have not been applied to modern language models. We empirically show that the representations obtained from large models align well with human annotations, outperform other zero-shot and prompt-free methods on semantic similarity tasks, and can be used to solve more complex entailment and containment tasks that standard embeddings cannot handle. Finally, we extend our method to represent data from different modalities (e.g., image and text) using multimodal autoregressive models. Our code is available at: https://github.com/tianyu139/meaning-as-trajectories

Pre-trained language models have been found to capture a surprisingly rich amount of lexical knowledge, ranging from commonsense properties of everyday concepts to detailed factual knowledge about named entities. Among others, this makes it possible to distill high-quality word vectors from pre-trained language models. However, it is currently unclear to what extent it is possible to distill relation embeddings, i.e. vectors that characterize the relationship between two words. Such relation embeddings are appealing because they can, in principle, encode relational knowledge in a more fine-grained way than is possible with knowledge graphs. To obtain relation embeddings from a pre-trained language model, we encode word pairs using a (manually or automatically generated) prompt, and we fine-tune the language model such that relationally similar word pairs yield similar output vectors. We find that the resulting relation embeddings are highly competitive on analogy (unsupervised) and relation classification (supervised) benchmarks, even without any task-specific fine-tuning. Source code to reproduce our experimental results and the model checkpoints are available in the following repository: https://github.com/asahi417/relbert

Generation of long-form, citation-backed reports is a primary use case for retrieval augmented generation (RAG) systems. While open-source evaluation tools exist for various RAG tasks, ones tailored to report generation (RG) are lacking. Accordingly, we introduce Auto-ARGUE, a robust LLM-based implementation of the recently proposed ARGUE framework for RG evaluation. We present analysis of Auto-ARGUE on the RG pilot task from the TREC 2024 NeuCLIR track, showing good system-level correlations with human judgments. We further release a web app for visualization of Auto-ARGUE outputs.

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) excel in multimodal reasoning and have shown impressive performance on various multimodal benchmarks. However, most of these benchmarks evaluate models primarily through multiple-choice or short-answer formats, which do not take the reasoning process into account. Although some benchmarks assess the reasoning process, their methods are often overly simplistic and only examine reasoning when answers are incorrect. This approach overlooks scenarios where flawed reasoning leads to correct answers. In addition, these benchmarks do not consider the impact of intermodal relationships on reasoning. To address this issue, we propose the Reasoning Process Tree Score (RPTS), a tree structure-based metric to assess reasoning processes. Specifically, we organize the reasoning steps into a reasoning tree and leverage its hierarchical information to assign weighted faithfulness scores to each reasoning step. By dynamically adjusting these weights, RPTS not only evaluates the overall correctness of the reasoning, but also pinpoints where the model fails in the reasoning. To validate RPTS in real-world multimodal scenarios, we construct a new benchmark, RPTS-Eval, comprising 374 images and 390 reasoning instances. Each instance includes reliable visual-textual clues that serve as leaf nodes of the reasoning tree. Furthermore, we define three types of intermodal relationships to investigate how intermodal interactions influence the reasoning process. We evaluated representative LVLMs (e.g., GPT4o, Llava-Next), uncovering their limitations in multimodal reasoning and highlighting the differences between open-source and closed-source commercial LVLMs. We believe that this benchmark will contribute to the advancement of research in the field of multimodal reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) are often praised for exhibiting near-human performance on a wide range of tasks and valued for their ability to hold a general conversation. The rise of agentic AI systems is, however, ushering in a mass of applications in which language models perform a small number of specialized tasks repetitively and with little variation. Here we lay out the position that small language models (SLMs) are sufficiently powerful, inherently more suitable, and necessarily more economical for many invocations in agentic systems, and are therefore the future of agentic AI. Our argumentation is grounded in the current level of capabilities exhibited by SLMs, the common architectures of agentic systems, and the economy of LM deployment. We further argue that in situations where general-purpose conversational abilities are essential, heterogeneous agentic systems (i.e., agents invoking multiple different models) are the natural choice. We discuss the potential barriers for the adoption of SLMs in agentic systems and outline a general LLM-to-SLM agent conversion algorithm. Our position, formulated as a value statement, highlights the significance of the operational and economic impact even a partial shift from LLMs to SLMs is to have on the AI agent industry. We aim to stimulate the discussion on the effective use of AI resources and hope to advance the efforts to lower the costs of AI of the present day. Calling for both contributions to and critique of our position, we commit to publishing all such correspondence at https://research.nvidia.com/labs/lpr/slm-agents.

Reasoning over visual relationships-spatial, functional, interactional, social, etc.-is considered to be a fundamental component of human cognition. Yet, despite the major advances in visual comprehension in multimodal language models (MLMs), precise reasoning over relationships and their generations remains a challenge. We introduce ROBIN: an MLM instruction-tuned with densely annotated relationships capable of constructing high-quality dense scene graphs at scale. To train ROBIN, we curate SVG, a synthetic scene graph dataset by completing the missing relations of selected objects in existing scene graphs using a teacher MLM and a carefully designed filtering process to ensure high-quality. To generate more accurate and rich scene graphs at scale for any image, we introduce SG-EDIT: a self-distillation framework where GPT-4o further refines ROBIN's predicted scene graphs by removing unlikely relations and/or suggesting relevant ones. In total, our dataset contains 146K images and 5.6M relationships for 2.6M objects. Results show that our ROBIN-3B model, despite being trained on less than 3 million instances, outperforms similar-size models trained on over 300 million instances on relationship understanding benchmarks, and even surpasses larger models up to 13B parameters. Notably, it achieves state-of-the-art performance in referring expression comprehension with a score of 88.9, surpassing the previous best of 87.4. Our results suggest that training on the refined scene graph data is crucial to maintaining high performance across diverse visual reasoning task.

Newspaper reports provide a rich source of information on the unfolding of public debate on specific policy fields that can serve as basis for inquiry in political science. Such debates are often triggered by critical events, which attract public attention and incite the reactions of political actors: crisis sparks the debate. However, due to the challenges of reliable annotation and modeling, few large-scale datasets with high-quality annotation are available. This paper introduces DebateNet2.0, which traces the political discourse on the European refugee crisis in the German quality newspaper taz during the year 2015. The core units of our annotation are political claims (requests for specific actions to be taken within the policy field) and the actors who make them (politicians, parties, etc.). The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, we document and release DebateNet2.0 along with its companion R package, mardyR, guiding the reader through the practical and conceptual issues related to the annotation of policy debates in newspapers. Second, we outline and apply a Discourse Network Analysis (DNA) to DebateNet2.0, comparing two crucial moments of the policy debate on the 'refugee crisis': the migration flux through the Mediterranean in April/May and the one along the Balkan route in September/October. Besides the released resources and the case-study, our contribution is also methodological: we talk the reader through the steps from a newspaper article to a discourse network, demonstrating that there is not just one discourse network for the German migration debate, but multiple ones, depending on the topic of interest (political actors, policy fields, time spans).

Reasoning is an essential component of human intelligence as it plays a fundamental role in our ability to think critically, support responsible decisions, and solve challenging problems. Traditionally, AI has addressed reasoning in the context of logic-based representations of knowledge. However, the recent leap forward in natural language processing, with the emergence of language models based on transformers, is hinting at the possibility that these models exhibit reasoning abilities, particularly as they grow in size and are trained on more data. Despite ongoing discussions about what reasoning is in language models, it is still not easy to pin down to what extent these models are actually capable of reasoning. The goal of this workshop is to create a platform for researchers from different disciplines and/or AI perspectives, to explore approaches and techniques with the aim to reconcile reasoning between language models using transformers and using logic-based representations. The specific objectives include analyzing the reasoning abilities of language models measured alongside KR methods, injecting KR-style reasoning abilities into language models (including by neuro-symbolic means), and formalizing the kind of reasoning language models carry out. This exploration aims to uncover how language models can effectively integrate and leverage knowledge and reasoning with it, thus improving their application and utility in areas where precision and reliability are a key requirement.

Spatial relationships between objects represent key scene information for humans to understand and interact with the world. To study the capability of current computer vision systems to recognize physically grounded spatial relations, we start by proposing precise relation definitions that permit consistently annotating a benchmark dataset. Despite the apparent simplicity of this task relative to others in the recognition literature, we observe that existing approaches perform poorly on this benchmark. We propose new approaches exploiting the long-range attention capabilities of transformers for this task, and evaluating key design principles. We identify a simple "RelatiViT" architecture and demonstrate that it outperforms all current approaches. To our knowledge, this is the first method to convincingly outperform naive baselines on spatial relation prediction in in-the-wild settings. The code and datasets are available in https://sites.google.com/view/spatial-relation.

Answering complex questions about textual narratives requires reasoning over both stated context and the world knowledge that underlies it. However, pretrained language models (LM), the foundation of most modern QA systems, do not robustly represent latent relationships between concepts, which is necessary for reasoning. While knowledge graphs (KG) are often used to augment LMs with structured representations of world knowledge, it remains an open question how to effectively fuse and reason over the KG representations and the language context, which provides situational constraints and nuances. In this work, we propose GreaseLM, a new model that fuses encoded representations from pretrained LMs and graph neural networks over multiple layers of modality interaction operations. Information from both modalities propagates to the other, allowing language context representations to be grounded by structured world knowledge, and allowing linguistic nuances (e.g., negation, hedging) in the context to inform the graph representations of knowledge. Our results on three benchmarks in the commonsense reasoning (i.e., CommonsenseQA, OpenbookQA) and medical question answering (i.e., MedQA-USMLE) domains demonstrate that GreaseLM can more reliably answer questions that require reasoning over both situational constraints and structured knowledge, even outperforming models 8x larger.

Language is not only used to transmit neutral information; we often seek to persuade by arguing in favor of a particular view. Persuasion raises a number of challenges for classical accounts of belief updating, as information cannot be taken at face value. How should listeners account for a speaker's "hidden agenda" when incorporating new information? Here, we extend recent probabilistic models of recursive social reasoning to allow for persuasive goals and show that our model provides a pragmatic account for why weakly favorable arguments may backfire, a phenomenon known as the weak evidence effect. Critically, this model predicts a systematic relationship between belief updates and expectations about the information source: weak evidence should only backfire when speakers are expected to act under persuasive goals and prefer the strongest evidence. We introduce a simple experimental paradigm called the Stick Contest to measure the extent to which the weak evidence effect depends on speaker expectations, and show that a pragmatic listener model accounts for the empirical data better than alternative models. Our findings suggest further avenues for rational models of social reasoning to illuminate classical decision-making phenomena.

In this paper, we introduce a new distributional method for modeling predicate-argument thematic fit judgments. We use a syntax-based DSM to build a prototypical representation of verb-specific roles: for every verb, we extract the most salient second order contexts for each of its roles (i.e. the most salient dimensions of typical role fillers), and then we compute thematic fit as a weighted overlap between the top features of candidate fillers and role prototypes. Our experiments show that our method consistently outperforms a baseline re-implementing a state-of-the-art system, and achieves better or comparable results to those reported in the literature for the other unsupervised systems. Moreover, it provides an explicit representation of the features characterizing verb-specific semantic roles.

Reasoning is a fundamental aspect of human intelligence that plays a crucial role in activities such as problem solving, decision making, and critical thinking. In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have made significant progress in natural language processing, and there is observation that these models may exhibit reasoning abilities when they are sufficiently large. However, it is not yet clear to what extent LLMs are capable of reasoning. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on reasoning in LLMs, including techniques for improving and eliciting reasoning in these models, methods and benchmarks for evaluating reasoning abilities, findings and implications of previous research in this field, and suggestions on future directions. Our aim is to provide a detailed and up-to-date review of this topic and stimulate meaningful discussion and future work.

Rhetorical questions are asked not to seek information but to persuade or signal stance. How large language models internally represent them remains unclear. We analyze rhetorical questions in LLM representations using linear probes on two social-media datasets with different discourse contexts, and find that rhetorical signals emerge early and are most stably captured by last-token representations. Rhetorical questions are linearly separable from information-seeking questions within datasets, and remain detectable under cross-dataset transfer, reaching AUROC around 0.7-0.8. However, we demonstrate that transferability does not simply imply a shared representation. Probes trained on different datasets produce different rankings when applied to the same target corpus, with overlap among the top-ranked instances often below 0.2. Qualitative analysis shows that these divergences correspond to distinct rhetorical phenomena: some probes capture discourse-level rhetorical stance embedded in extended argumentation, while others emphasize localized, syntax-driven interrogative acts. Together, these findings suggest that rhetorical questions in LLM representations are encoded by multiple linear directions emphasizing different cues, rather than a single shared direction.

We present the Touch\'e23-ValueEval Dataset for Identifying Human Values behind Arguments. To investigate approaches for the automated detection of human values behind arguments, we collected 9324 arguments from 6 diverse sources, covering religious texts, political discussions, free-text arguments, newspaper editorials, and online democracy platforms. Each argument was annotated by 3 crowdworkers for 54 values. The Touch\'e23-ValueEval dataset extends the Webis-ArgValues-22. In comparison to the previous dataset, the effectiveness of a 1-Baseline decreases, but that of an out-of-the-box BERT model increases. Therefore, though the classification difficulty increased as per the label distribution, the larger dataset allows for training better models.

LLMs are ubiquitous in modern NLP, and while their applicability extends to texts produced for democratic activities such as online deliberations or large-scale citizen consultations, ethical questions have been raised for their usage as analysis tools. We continue this line of research with two main goals: (a) to develop resources that can help standardize citizen contributions in public forums at the pragmatic level, and make them easier to use in topic modeling and political analysis; (b) to study how well this standardization can reliably be performed by small, open-weights LLMs, i.e. models that can be run locally and transparently with limited resources. Accordingly, we introduce Corpus Clarification as a preprocessing framework for large-scale consultation data that transforms noisy, multi-topic contributions into structured, self-contained argumentative units ready for downstream analysis. We present GDN-CC, a manually-curated dataset of 1,231 contributions to the French Grand Débat National, comprising 2,285 argumentative units annotated for argumentative structure and manually clarified. We then show that finetuned Small Language Models match or outperform LLMs on reproducing these annotations, and measure their usability for an opinion clustering task. We finally release GDN-CC-large, an automatically annotated corpus of 240k contributions, the largest annotated democratic consultation dataset to date.

Rule-based reasoning, a fundamental type of legal reasoning, enables us to draw conclusions by accurately applying a rule to a set of facts. We explore causal language models as rule-based reasoners, specifically with respect to compositional rules - rules consisting of multiple elements which form a complex logical expression. Reasoning about compositional rules is challenging because it requires multiple reasoning steps, and attending to the logical relationships between elements. We introduce a new prompting method, Chain of Logic, which elicits rule-based reasoning through decomposition (solving elements as independent threads of logic), and recomposition (recombining these sub-answers to resolve the underlying logical expression). This method was inspired by the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) framework, a sequential reasoning approach used by lawyers. We evaluate chain of logic across eight rule-based reasoning tasks involving three distinct compositional rules from the LegalBench benchmark and demonstrate it consistently outperforms other prompting methods, including chain of thought and self-ask, using open-source and commercial language models.

This work provides an explanatory view of how LLMs can apply moral reasoning to both criticize and defend sexist language. We assessed eight large language models, all of which demonstrated the capability to provide explanations grounded in varying moral perspectives for both critiquing and endorsing views that reflect sexist assumptions. With both human and automatic evaluation, we show that all eight models produce comprehensible and contextually relevant text, which is helpful in understanding diverse views on how sexism is perceived. Also, through analysis of moral foundations cited by LLMs in their arguments, we uncover the diverse ideological perspectives in models' outputs, with some models aligning more with progressive or conservative views on gender roles and sexism. Based on our observations, we caution against the potential misuse of LLMs to justify sexist language. We also highlight that LLMs can serve as tools for understanding the roots of sexist beliefs and designing well-informed interventions. Given this dual capacity, it is crucial to monitor LLMs and design safety mechanisms for their use in applications that involve sensitive societal topics, such as sexism.

Document-level Event Argument Extraction (DEAE) aims to identify arguments and their specific roles from an unstructured document. The advanced approaches on DEAE utilize prompt-based methods to guide pre-trained language models (PLMs) in extracting arguments from input documents. They mainly concentrate on establishing relations between triggers and entity mentions within documents, leaving two unresolved problems: a) independent modeling of entity mentions; b) document-prompt isolation. To this end, we propose a semantic mention Graph Augmented Model (GAM) to address these two problems in this paper. Firstly, GAM constructs a semantic mention graph that captures relations within and between documents and prompts, encompassing co-existence, co-reference and co-type relations. Furthermore, we introduce an ensembled graph transformer module to address mentions and their three semantic relations effectively. Later, the graph-augmented encoder-decoder module incorporates the relation-specific graph into the input embedding of PLMs and optimizes the encoder section with topology information, enhancing the relations comprehensively. Extensive experiments on the RAMS and WikiEvents datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, surpassing baseline methods and achieving a new state-of-the-art performance.

Logical reasoning is of vital importance to natural language understanding. Previous studies either employ graph-based models to incorporate prior knowledge about logical relations, or introduce symbolic logic into neural models through data augmentation. These methods, however, heavily depend on annotated training data, and thus suffer from over-fitting and poor generalization problems due to the dataset sparsity. To address these two problems, in this paper, we propose MERIt, a MEta-path guided contrastive learning method for logical ReasonIng of text, to perform self-supervised pre-training on abundant unlabeled text data. Two novel strategies serve as indispensable components of our method. In particular, a strategy based on meta-path is devised to discover the logical structure in natural texts, followed by a counterfactual data augmentation strategy to eliminate the information shortcut induced by pre-training. The experimental results on two challenging logical reasoning benchmarks, i.e., ReClor and LogiQA, demonstrate that our method outperforms the SOTA baselines with significant improvements.

The increasing capability of Large Language Models to act as human-like social agents raises two important questions in the area of opinion dynamics. First, whether these agents can generate effective arguments that could be injected into the online discourse to steer the public opinion. Second, whether artificial agents can interact with each other to reproduce dynamics of persuasion typical of human social systems, opening up opportunities for studying synthetic social systems as faithful proxies for opinion dynamics in human populations. To address these questions, we designed a synthetic persuasion dialogue scenario on the topic of climate change, where a 'convincer' agent generates a persuasive argument for a 'skeptic' agent, who subsequently assesses whether the argument changed its internal opinion state. Different types of arguments were generated to incorporate different linguistic dimensions underpinning psycho-linguistic theories of opinion change. We then asked human judges to evaluate the persuasiveness of machine-generated arguments. Arguments that included factual knowledge, markers of trust, expressions of support, and conveyed status were deemed most effective according to both humans and agents, with humans reporting a marked preference for knowledge-based arguments. Our experimental framework lays the groundwork for future in-silico studies of opinion dynamics, and our findings suggest that artificial agents have the potential of playing an important role in collective processes of opinion formation in online social media.