LLM DEBATE OPPONENT : Counter-argument Generation focusing on Implicit and Critical Premises (2025.naacl-srw)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise in automating counter-argument generation. |
| Approach: | They compare multi-step and one-step generation methods for counter-arguments across 100 debate topics. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms multi-step and one-step pipelines for counter-arguments across 100 debate topics. |
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. |
Conclusion-based Counter-Argument Generation (2023.eacl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing work on the automatic generation of natural language counter-arguments does not address the relation to the conclusion, possibly because many arguments leave their conclusion implicit. |
| Approach: | They propose a multitask approach that jointly learns to generate both the conclusion and the counter of an input argument. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach generates more relevant and stance-adhering counters than strong baselines. |
Counterfactual Debating with Preset Stances for Hallucination Elimination of LLMs (2025.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing solutions to alleviate hallucination have considered utilizing LLMs’ inherent reasoning abilities to alleviating hallucinism, such as self-correction and diverse sampling methods. |
| Approach: | They propose a counterfactual multi-agent debate framework that predetermines LLMs' stances to override their inherent biases for answer inspection. |
| Outcome: | Extensive experiments on four datasets of three tasks demonstrate the superiority of the proposed framework over existing methods. |
Dynamic Knowledge Integration for Evidence-Driven Counter-Argument Generation with Large Language Models (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Argumentation in natural language processing (NLP) is becoming an indispensable tool in many application domains such as public policy, law, medicine, and education. |
| Approach: | They propose a reconstructed dataset of argument and counter-argument pairs . they propose integrating dynamic external knowledge from the web to improve counter-arguments . |
| Outcome: | The proposed method shows stronger correlation with human judgments compared to reference-based metrics. |
Counter-Argument Generation by Attacking Weak Premises (2021.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a recent work explores the generation of counter-arguments by undermining one of its premises . identifying the argument's weak premises is key to effective countering, we hypothesize . |
| Approach: | They propose a pipeline approach that first assesses the argument's weak premises and generates a counter-argument undermining the weakest among them. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach undermins arguments by attacking weak premises . human annotators favor the proposed approach over state-of-the-art approaches . |
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. |
Prompting Large Language Models for Counterfactual Generation: An Empirical Study (2024.lrec-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) have made remarkable progress in a wide range of natural language understanding and generation tasks, but their ability to generate counterfactuals has not been examined systematically. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework to evaluate LLMs' ability to generate counterfactuals based on key factors including intrinsic properties and prompt design. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework examines the strengths and weaknesses of large language models (LLMs) and identifies factors that influence their ability to generate counterfactuals. |
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. |
DEBATE: Devil’s Advocate-Based Assessment and Text Evaluation (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for evaluating the quality of machine-generated texts have a relatively low correlation with human performance. |
| Approach: | They propose an NLG evaluation framework based on multi-agent scoring system augmented with a concept of Devil’s Advocate. |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation framework outperforms the previous state-of-the-art methods in two meta-evaluation benchmarks in NLG evaluation, SummEval and TopicalChat. |
ArgBench: Benchmarking LLMs on Computational Argumentation Tasks (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Argumentation skills are an essential toolkit for large language models (LLMs). |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to evaluate the generalizability of five LLM families across 46 computational argumentation tasks. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark evaluates the generalizability of five LLM families across 46 computational argumentation tasks covering mining arguments, assessing perspectives, evaluating argument quality, reasoning about arguments, and generating arguments. |