Mining Legal Arguments to Study Judicial Formalism

Courts must justify their decisions, but systematically analyzing judicial reasoning at scale remains difficult. This study refutes claims about formalistic judging in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) by developing automated methods to detect and classify judicial reasoning in Czech Supreme Courts' decisions using state-of-the-art natural language processing methods. We create the MADON dataset of 272 decisions from two Czech Supreme Courts with expert annotations of 9,183 paragraphs with eight argument types and holistic formalism labels for supervised training and evaluation. Using a corpus of 300k Czech court decisions, we adapt transformer LLMs for Czech legal domain by continued pretraining and experiment with methods to address dataset imbalance including asymmetric loss and class weighting. The best models successfully detect argumentative paragraphs (82.6\% macro-F1), classify traditional types of legal argument (77.5\% macro-F1), and classify decisions as formalistic/non-formalistic (83.2\% macro-F1). Our three-stage pipeline combining ModernBERT, Llama 3.1, and traditional feature-based machine learning achieves promising results for decision classification while reducing computational costs and increasing explainability. Empirically, we challenge prevailing narratives about CEE formalism. This work shows that legal argument mining enables reliable judicial philosophy classification and shows the potential of legal argument mining for other important tasks in computational legal studies. Our methodology is easily replicable across jurisdictions, and our entire pipeline, datasets, guidelines, models, and source codes are available at https://github.com/trusthlt/madon.

Examining Student Interactions with a Pedagogical AI-Assistant for Essay Writing and their Impact on Students Writing Quality

The dynamic nature of interactions between students and GenAI, as well as their relationship to writing quality, remains underexplored. While most research has examined how general-purpose GenAI can support writing, fewer studies have investigated how students interact with pedagogically designed systems across different phases of the writing process. To address this gap, we evaluated a GenAI-driven essay-writing assistant (EWA) designed to support higher education students in argumentative writing. Drawing on 1,282 interaction logs from 32 undergraduates during a two-hour writing session, Sequential Pattern Mining and K-Means clustering were used to identify behavioral patterns. Two clusters emerged: Cluster 1 emphasized outline planning and essay structure, while Cluster 2 focused on content development. A Mann-Whitney U test revealed a moderate effect size (r = 0.36) in the essay Organization dimension, with Cluster 1 showing higher scores. Qualitative analysis indicated that students with better performance actively wrote and shared essay sections with EWA for feedback, rather than interacted passively by asking questions. These findings suggest implications for teaching and system design. Teachers can encourage active engagement, while future EWAs may integrate automatic labeling and monitoring to prompt students to move from questioning to writing, enabling fuller benefits from GenAI-supported learning.

From Semantic Roles to Opinion Roles: SRL Data Extraction for Multi-Task and Transfer Learning in Low-Resource ORL

This report presents a detailed methodology for constructing a high-quality Semantic Role Labeling (SRL) dataset from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) portion of the OntoNotes 5.0 corpus and adapting it for Opinion Role Labeling (ORL) tasks. Leveraging the PropBank annotation framework, we implement a reproducible extraction pipeline that aligns predicate-argument structures with surface text, converts syntactic tree pointers to coherent spans, and applies rigorous cleaning to ensure semantic fidelity. The resulting dataset comprises 97,169 predicate-argument instances with clearly defined Agent (ARG0), Predicate (REL), and Patient (ARG1) roles, mapped to ORL's Holder, Expression, and Target schema. We provide a detailed account of our extraction algorithms, discontinuous argument handling, annotation corrections, and statistical analysis of the resulting dataset. This work offers a reusable resource for researchers aiming to leverage SRL for enhancing ORL, especially in low-resource opinion mining scenarios.

AMELIA: A Family of Multi-task End-to-end Language Models for Argumentation

Argument mining is a subfield of argumentation that aims to automatically extract argumentative structures and their relations from natural language texts. This paper investigates how a single large language model can be leveraged to perform one or several argument mining tasks. Our contributions are two-fold. First, we construct a multi-task dataset by surveying and converting 19 well-known argument mining datasets from the literature into a unified format. Second, we explore various training strategies using Meta AI's Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct model: (1) fine-tuning on individual tasks, (2) fine-tuning jointly on multiple tasks, and (3) merging models fine-tuned separately on individual tasks. Our experiments show that task-specific fine-tuning significantly improves individual performance across all tasks. Moreover, multi-task fine-tuning maintains strong performance without degradation, suggesting effective transfer learning across related tasks. Finally, we demonstrate that model merging offers a viable compromise: it yields competitive performance while mitigating the computational costs associated with full multi-task fine-tuning.

A Straightforward Pipeline for Targeted Entailment and Contradiction Detection

Finding the relationships between sentences in a document is crucial for tasks like fact-checking, argument mining, and text summarization. A key challenge is to identify which sentences act as premises or contradictions for a specific claim. Existing methods often face a trade-off: transformer attention mechanisms can identify salient textual connections but lack explicit semantic labels, while Natural Language Inference (NLI) models can classify relationships between sentence pairs but operate independently of contextual saliency. In this work, we introduce a method that combines the strengths of both approaches for a targeted analysis. Our pipeline first identifies candidate sentences that are contextually relevant to a user-selected target sentence by aggregating token-level attention scores. It then uses a pretrained NLI model to classify each candidate as a premise (entailment) or contradiction. By filtering NLI-identified relationships with attention-based saliency scores, our method efficiently isolates the most significant semantic relationships for any given claim in a text.

Medical Argument Mining: Exploitation of Scarce Data Using NLI Systems

This work presents an Argument Mining process that extracts argumentative entities from clinical texts and identifies their relationships using token classification and Natural Language Inference techniques. Compared to straightforward methods like text classification, this methodology demonstrates superior performance in data-scarce settings. By assessing the effectiveness of these methods in identifying argumentative structures that support or refute possible diagnoses, this research lays the groundwork for future tools that can provide evidence-based justifications for machine-generated clinical conclusions.

LLMs for Argument Mining: Detection, Extraction, and Relationship Classification of pre-defined Arguments in Online Comments

Automated large-scale analysis of public discussions around contested issues like abortion requires detecting and understanding the use of arguments. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in language processing tasks, their performance in mining topic-specific, pre-defined arguments in online comments remains underexplored. We evaluate four state-of-the-art LLMs on three argument mining tasks using datasets comprising over 2,000 opinion comments across six polarizing topics. Quantitative evaluation suggests an overall strong performance across the three tasks, especially for large and fine-tuned LLMs, albeit at a significant environmental cost. However, a detailed error analysis revealed systematic shortcomings on long and nuanced comments and emotionally charged language, raising concerns for downstream applications like content moderation or opinion analysis. Our results highlight both the promise and current limitations of LLMs for automated argument analysis in online comments.

ELLIS Alicante at CQs-Gen 2025: Winning the critical thinking questions shared task: LLM-based question generation and selection

The widespread adoption of chat interfaces based on Large Language Models (LLMs) raises concerns about promoting superficial learning and undermining the development of critical thinking skills. Instead of relying on LLMs purely for retrieving factual information, this work explores their potential to foster deeper reasoning by generating critical questions that challenge unsupported or vague claims in debate interventions. This study is part of a shared task of the 12th Workshop on Argument Mining, co-located with ACL 2025, focused on automatic critical question generation. We propose a two-step framework involving two small-scale open source language models: a Questioner that generates multiple candidate questions and a Judge that selects the most relevant ones. Our system ranked first in the shared task competition, demonstrating the potential of the proposed LLM-based approach to encourage critical engagement with argumentative texts.

Limited Generalizability in Argument Mining: State-Of-The-Art Models Learn Datasets, Not Arguments

Identifying arguments is a necessary prerequisite for various tasks in automated discourse analysis, particularly within contexts such as political debates, online discussions, and scientific reasoning. In addition to theoretical advances in understanding the constitution of arguments, a significant body of research has emerged around practical argument mining, supported by a growing number of publicly available datasets. On these benchmarks, BERT-like transformers have consistently performed best, reinforcing the belief that such models are broadly applicable across diverse contexts of debate. This study offers the first large-scale re-evaluation of such state-of-the-art models, with a specific focus on their ability to generalize in identifying arguments. We evaluate four transformers, three standard and one enhanced with contrastive pre-training for better generalization, on 17 English sentence-level datasets as most relevant to the task. Our findings show that, to varying degrees, these models tend to rely on lexical shortcuts tied to content words, suggesting that apparent progress may often be driven by dataset-specific cues rather than true task alignment. While the models achieve strong results on familiar benchmarks, their performance drops markedly when applied to unseen datasets. Nonetheless, incorporating both task-specific pre-training and joint benchmark training proves effective in enhancing both robustness and generalization.

Towards Comprehensive Argument Analysis in Education: Dataset, Tasks, and Method

Argument mining has garnered increasing attention over the years, with the recent advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) further propelling this trend. However, current argument relations remain relatively simplistic and foundational, struggling to capture the full scope of argument information, particularly when it comes to representing complex argument structures in real-world scenarios. To address this limitation, we propose 14 fine-grained relation types from both vertical and horizontal dimensions, thereby capturing the intricate interplay between argument components for a thorough understanding of argument structure. On this basis, we conducted extensive experiments on three tasks: argument component detection, relation prediction, and automated essay grading. Additionally, we explored the impact of writing quality on argument component detection and relation prediction, as well as the connections between discourse relations and argumentative features. The findings highlight the importance of fine-grained argumentative annotations for argumentative writing quality assessment and encourage multi-dimensional argument analysis.