Andrzej Tomski

Marcin Pietroń, Filip Gampel, Jakub Gomułka et al.

Argument mining (AM) is an interdisciplinary research field focused on the automatic identification and classification of argumentative components, such as claims and premises, and the relationships between them. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have significantly improved the performance of argument classification compared to traditional machine learning approaches. This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of several state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-5.2, Llama 4, and DeepSeek, on large publicly available argument classification corpora such as Args.me and UKP. The evaluation incorporates advanced prompting strategies, including Chain-of- Thought prompting, prompt rephrasing, voting, and certainty-based classification. Both quantitative performance metrics and qualitative error analysis are conducted to assess model behavior. The best-performing model in the study (GPT-5.2) achieves a classification accuracy of 78.0% (UKP) and 91.9% (Args.me). The use of prompt rephrasing, multi-prompt voting, and certainty estimation further improves classification performance and robustness. These techniques increase the accuracy and F1 metric of the models by typically a few percentage points (from 2% to 8%). However, qualitative analysis reveals systematic failure modes shared across models, including instabilities with respect to prompt formulation, difficulties in detecting implicit criticism, interpreting complex argument structures, and aligning arguments with specific claims. This work contributes the first comprehensive evaluation that combines quantitative benchmarking and qualitative error analysis on multiple argument mining datasets using advanced LLM prompting strategies.

Marcin Pietroń, Rafał Olszowski, Jakub Gomułka et al.

Argument mining (AM) is an interdisciplinary research field that integrates insights from logic, philosophy, linguistics, rhetoric, law, psychology, and computer science. It involves the automatic identification and extraction of argumentative components, such as premises and claims, and the detection of relationships between them, such as support, attack, or neutrality. Recently, the field has advanced significantly, especially with the advent of large language models (LLMs), which have enhanced the efficiency of analyzing and extracting argument semantics compared to traditional methods and other deep learning models. There are many benchmarks for testing and verifying the quality of LLM, but there is still a lack of research and results on the operation of these models in publicly available argument classification databases. This paper presents a study of a selection of LLM's, using diverse datasets such as Args.me and UKP. The models tested include versions of GPT, Llama, and DeepSeek, along with reasoning-enhanced variants incorporating the Chain-of-Thoughts algorithm. The results indicate that ChatGPT-4o outperforms the others in the argument classification benchmarks. In case of models incorporated with reasoning capabilities, the Deepseek-R1 shows its superiority. However, despite their superiority, GPT-4o and Deepseek-R1 still make errors. The most common errors are discussed for all models. To our knowledge, the presented work is the first broader analysis of the mentioned datasets using LLM and prompt algorithms. The work also shows some weaknesses of known prompt algorithms in argument analysis, while indicating directions for their improvement. The added value of the work is the in-depth analysis of the available argument datasets and the demonstration of their shortcomings.