| Challenge: | Existing studies have found that large language models can generate persuasive content without engaging in human experimentation. |
| Approach: | They extend a dataset with debates, votes, and user traits to measure LLMs' ability to distinguish between strong and weak arguments, predict stances based on beliefs and demographic characteristics, and determine appeal of argument to individual based upon their traits. |
| Outcome: | The proposed tasks outperform human predictions in detecting convincing arguments in debates, votes, and user traits. |
Similar Papers
Exploring the Potential of Large Language Models in Computational Argumentation (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Argumentation is an essential tool in various domains, including law, public policy, and artificial intelligence. |
| Approach: | They propose to evaluate LLMs on various computational argumentation tasks . they organize existing tasks into six main categories and standardize the format of 14 datasets . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model performs well on argument mining and argument generation tasks. |
Measuring and Benchmarking Large Language Models’ Capabilities to Generate Persuasive Language (2025.naacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent studies have focused on specific domains or types of persuasion, but a general study has focused on how LLMs produce persuasive text. |
| Approach: | They construct a dataset to measure and benchmark the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to produce persuasive text. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can be used to generate persuasive text across domains and domains. |
Detecting Winning Arguments with Large Language Models and Persuasion Strategies (2026.findings-eacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent studies have focused on predicting winning arguments, i.e., those that effectively convince a reader to adopt a certain opinion. |
| Approach: | They propose to use large language models with a chain-of-thought framework to guide reasoning over six persuasion strategies to determine persuasiveness. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach leverages large language models with a chain-of-thought framework that guides reasoning over six persuasion strategies. |
What Evidence Do Language Models Find Convincing? (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Current retrieval-augmented language models are tasked with subjective, contentious, and conflicting queries. |
| Approach: | They construct a dataset that pairs controversial queries with real-world evidence documents . they find current models rely heavily on relevance of a website to the query . |
| Outcome: | The proposed dataset pairs controversial queries with real-world evidence documents that contain different facts, arguments, and answers. |
Large Language Models Help Humans Verify Truthfulness – Except When They Are Convincingly Wrong (2024.naacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for accessing information on the web. |
| Approach: | They conduct experiments with 80 crowdworkers to compare LLMs with search engines . they ask LLM to provide contrastive information to reduce over-reliance on LLM . |
| Outcome: | The results show that LLMs can outperform search engines but not LLM explanations . the study shows that LMS explanations are not reliable replacements for reading retrieved passages compared to search engines alone. |
Evaluating the Deductive Competence of Large Language Models (2024.naacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing large language models have limited abilities to solve deductive reasoning problems . performance differences between conditions do not improve overall performance . |
| Approach: | They investigate whether several large language models can solve a deductive reasoning problem in their conventional form. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models can solve a classic type of deductive reasoning problem in their conventional form. |
Towards Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Survey (2023.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Reasoning is a fundamental aspect of human intelligence that plays a crucial role in many intellectual activities. |
| Approach: | They propose to improve LLMs' ability to elicit reasoning by providing exemplars or prompts to model reasoning. |
| Outcome: | This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the state of knowledge on reasoning in large language models. |
Natural Language Reasoning in Large Language Models: Analysis and Evaluation (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Argumentative reasoning presents unique challenges due to its reliance on context, implicit assumptions, and value judgments. |
| Approach: | They propose a large-scale evaluation of LLMs' unconstrained natural language reasoning capabilities . they formalise a new strategy designed to evaluate argumentative reasoning in LLM . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model performs better on a range of reasoning tasks than other models. |
Improving Argument Effectiveness Across Ideologies using Instruction-tuned Large Language Models (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a study finds that different political ideologies hold different worldviews, which leads to contentious debates . argument effectiveness is improved by using instruction-tuned large language models . |
| Approach: | They propose to use instruction-tuned large language models to turn ineffective arguments into effective arguments for people with certain ideologies. |
| Outcome: | The proposed methods improve argument effectiveness for liberals by rewriting arguments using three LLM methods. |
AI Argues Differently: Distinct Argumentative and Linguistic Patterns of LLMs in Persuasive Contexts (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Distinguishing LLM-generated text from human-written is a key challenge for safe and ethical NLP, especially in high-stake settings such as persuasive online discourse. |
| Approach: | They propose to use general-purpose linguistic features and domain-specific features related to argument quality to compare human- and LLM-authored arguments. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework compares arguments by humans and three LLMs using two easily-interpretable feature sets. |