Argument generation is a fundamental NLP task that aims to automatically produce persuasive arguments.Effective human argumentation is inherently complex and multifaceted, integrating argumentative strategies, appropriate styles, and adaptation to target audiences, etc.However, existing studies focus on limited control signals such as topic, stance, or key aspects, failing to capture this complexity.As LLMs advance, the lack of benchmarks evaluating multifaceted argumentative control becomes a critical bottleneck.To address this, we introduce ArgGenBench, a novel benchmark containing complex instructions that integrate multi-dimensional control, including topic, stance, length, style, strategy, audience, and key points.Extensive evaluation across 15 LLMs reveals significant limitations: even the best-performing model achieves only 42.7% win rate against human-verified references.These results highlight the challenge of controlled argument generation and establish ArgGenBench as a rigorous testbed for developing more capable systems.

The advancement of Argument Mining (AM) is hindered by a critical bottleneck: the scarcity of structure-annotated datasets, which are expensive to create manually. Inspired by recent successes in synthetic data generation across various NLP tasks, this paper explores methodologies for LLMs to generate synthetic data for AM.We investigate two complementary synthesis perspectives: a quality-oriented synthesis approach, which employs structure-aware paraphrasing to preserve annotation quality, and a diversity-oriented synthesis approach, which generates novel argumentative texts with diverse topics and argument structures.Experiments on three datasets show that augmenting original training data with our synthetic data, particularly when combining both quality- and diversity-oriented instances, significantly enhances the performance of existing AM models, both in full-data and low-resource settings.Moreover, the positive correlation between synthetic data volume and model performance highlights the scalability of our methods.

Recent efforts leverage knowledge distillation techniques to develop lightweight and practical sentiment analysis models. These methods are grounded in human-written instructions and large-scale user texts. Despite the promising results, two key challenges remain: (1) manually written instructions are limited in diversity and quantity, making them insufficient to ensure comprehensive coverage of distilled knowledge; (2) large-scale user texts incur high computational cost, hindering the practicality of these methods. To this end, we introduce CompEffDist, a comprehensive and efficient distillation framework for sentiment analysis. Our framework consists of two key modules: attribute-based automatic instruction construction and difficulty-based data filtering, which correspondingly tackle the aforementioned challenges. Applying our method across multiple model series (Llama-3, Qwen-3, and Gemma-3), we enable 3B student models to match the performance of 20x larger teacher models on most tasks. In addition, our approach greatly outperforms baseline methods in data efficiency, attaining the same performance level with only 10% of the data. All codes are available at https://github.com/HITSZ-HLT/COMPEFFDIST.

Argumentation Mining (AM) aims to extract argumentative structures from texts by identifying argumentation components (ACs) and their argumentative relations (ARs). While previous works focus on representation learning to encode ACs and AC pairs, they fail to explicitly model the underlying reasoning patterns of AM, resulting in limited interpretability. This paper proposes a novel  ̲First- ̲Order  ̲Logic reasoning framework for  ̲AM (FOL-AM), designed to explicitly capture logical reasoning paths within argumentative texts. By interpreting multiple AM subtasks as a unified relation query task modeled using FOL rules, FOL-AM facilitates multi-hop relational reasoning and enhances interpretability. The framework supports two flexible implementations: a fine-tuned approach to leverage task-specific learning, and a prompt-based method utilizing large language models to harness their generalization capabilities. Extensive experiments on two AM benchmarks demonstrate that FOL-AM outperforms strong baselines while significantly improving explainability.

Argument quality assessment faces inherent challenges due to its subjective nature, where different evaluators may assign varying quality scores for an argument based on personal perspectives. Although existing datasets collect opinions from multiple annotators to model subjectivity, most existing computational methods fail to consider multi-perspective evaluation. To address this issue, we propose MPAQ, a multi-persona framework for argument quality assessment that simulates diverse evaluator perspectives through large language models. It first dynamically generates targeted personas tailored to an input argument, then simulates each persona’s reasoning process to evaluate the argument quality from multiple perspectives. To effectively generate fine-grained quality scores, we develop a coarse-to-fine scoring strategy that first generates a coarse-grained integer score and then refines it into a fine-grained decimal score. Experiments on IBM-Rank-30k and IBM-ArgQ-5.3kArgs datasets demonstrate that MPAQ consistently outperforms strong baselines while providing comprehensive multi-perspective rationales.

Argumentative Essay Generation (AEG) is a challenging task in computational argumentation, where detailed logical reasoning and effective rhetorical skills are essential.Previous methods on argument generation typically involve planning prior to generation.However, the planning strategies in these methods overlook the exploration of the logical reasoning process.Inspired by argument structure-related theories, we propose an argumentative planning strategy for prompting large language models (LLMs) to generate high-quality essays.This strategy comprises two stages: (1) Sketch planning, which creates a rough outline of the essay, and (2) Dialectical planning, which refines the outline through critical self-reflection.Such a planning strategy enables LLMs to write argumentative essays that are more logical, diverse, and persuasive.Furthermore, due to the scarcity of existing AEG datasets, we construct three new datasets.These datasets are from two domains: exam essays and news editorials, covering both Chinese and English.Automatic and manual evaluation on four datasets show that our method can generate more dialectical and persuasive essays with higher diversity compared to several strong baselines.

End-to-end argumentation mining (AM) aims to extract the argumentation structure including argumentation components and their argumentation relations from text. Recent developments in end-to-end AM models have demonstrated significant progress by redefining the AM task as a sequence generation task, exhibiting simplicity and competitive performance. Nevertheless, these models overlook the integration of supplementary discourse structure information, a crucial factor for comprehending argumentation structures, resulting in suboptimal outcomes. In this study, we propose the DENIM framework, which generates discourse structure-aware prefixes for each layer of the generation model. These prefixes imbue the generation-based AM model with discourse structures, thereby augmenting the overall generation process. Moreover, we introduce a multi-task prompt coupled with a three-step decoding strategy, aiming to optimize the efficiency and effectiveness of argumentation structure decoding. Extensive experiments and analyses on two benchmark datasets show that DENIM achieves state-of-the-art performances on two AM benchmarks.

Argument pair extraction (APE) aims to extract interactive argument pairs from two passages within a discussion. The key challenge of APE is to effectively capture the complex context-aware interactive relations of arguments between the two passages. In this paper, we elicit relational semantic knowledge from large-scale pre-trained language models (PLMs) via a probing technique. The induced sentence-level relational probing graph can help capture rich explicit interactive relations between argument pairs effectively. Since the relevance score of a sentence pair within a passage is generally larger than that of the sentence pair from different passages, each sentence would prefer to propagate information within the same passage and under-explore the interactive relations between two passages. To tackle this issue, we propose a graph decomposition method to decompose the probing graph into four sub-graphs from intra- and inter-passage perspectives, where the intra-passage graphs can help detect argument spans within each passage and the inter-passage graphs can help identify the argument pairs between the review and rebuttal passages. Experimental results on two benchmark datasets show that our method achieves substantial improvements over strong baselines for APE.