Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper extends a multi-agent debate framework for Argument Relation Identification and Classification (ARIC) by introducing a confidence gating mechanism that selectively engages in debate only for uncertain predictions. The results show that this approach achieves the highest Macro F1 score among training-free methods on the UKP Argument Annotated Essays v2 corpus, outperforming even fine-tuned RoBERTa models. The framework also generates human-readable debate transcripts, enhancing interpretability compared to traditional models.
Selective debate using confidence gating not only boosts performance in argument relation classification but also yields interpretable outputs that traditional methods lack.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly assessed and utilized in the field of Argument Mining (AM), thanks to their strong general reasoning capabilities. However, standard training-free models often miss sophisticated details, specifically in contexts where two parts of the text have to be analyzed together. Furthermore, self-correction mechanisms tend to reinforce initial hallucinations in reasoning. Overcoming these limitations typically requires expensive, domain-specific supervised fine-tuning. Recent work has shown that a multi-agent paradigm can address such weaknesses for the component classification task through dialectical refinement with a Proponent-Opponent-Judge architecture, setting a promising direction for training-free approaches in the field. In this paper, we extend and evaluate this framework on the Argument Relation Identification and Classification (ARIC) task, reformulating it as a debate over component pairs. Besides that, we introduce a confidence gating mechanism that enables debating only on the uncertain cases and accepting the initial prediction when confidence is high. On the UKP Argument Annotated Essays v2 corpus, we demonstrate that the selective debate achieves the highest Macro F1 among all training-free methods, while debate over all samples degrades performance below that of one of the baselines. All generative approaches also outperform fine-tuned RoBERTa models on Macro F1, suggesting that the under-representation of the Attack class was more damaging to supervised fine-tuning than to inference-only models. Additionally, our framework produces human-readable debate transcripts, offering interpretability absent from both single-agent and supervised classifiers.
