Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
TruthSplit is an interactive system designed for multi-perspective argument analysis that operationalizes the concept of conditional validity. By employing a three-layer natural language inference approach, it evaluates both logical consistency and worldview-specific interpretations of claims, allowing users to explore how different values and assumptions can lead to divergent conclusions. The key finding is that TruthSplit effectively identifies value conflicts and assumption gaps, enhancing the understanding of argumentative discourse across varying perspectives.
TruthSplit reveals how the same claim can yield radically different conclusions based on underlying worldview assumptions, challenging the notion of objective argument validity.
We present TruthSplit, an interactive system for multi-perspective argument analysis. Existing argumentation tools typically analyze properties of the argument itself, such as structure, quality, stance, or persuasiveness, while leaving perspective-specific background knowledge implicit. TruthSplit addresses this gap by supporting an exploratory analysis of how the same claim can lead to different conclusions when interpreted through worldview-specific values, assumptions, and conceptual definitions. We refer to this perspective-dependent analysis as conditional validity. Given an input argumentative text, TruthSplit extracts claims and premises, applies a three-layer natural language inference (NLI) approach to assess both logical and worldview-specific normative consistency, and conditions large language model (LLM) reasoning on structured worldview profiles that encode core values and decision principles. The system then generates perspective-specific interpretations, identifies value conflicts and assumption gaps, and visualizes divergence through interactive analytical interfaces.