arXiv subjects

Patricia Martín-Rodilla

Publications and source records attributed to Patricia Martín-Rodilla.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Have You Been Convinced? A Neuro-symbolic Argumentation Reasoning Approach to Detecting Persuasiveness in ChangeMyView Discussions

Argument structures represent how individual arguments interact within a discourse. However, leveraging these structures to infer meaningful knowledge remains challenging, as it requires a formal representation of how argumentative influence propagates across the structure. We propose Neuro-symbolic Argumentation Reasoning System (NARS) for performing persuasiveness detection directly from online discussions. The neural component employs retrieval-augmented iterative LLM reasoning to extract bipolar argument structures, while the symbolic component applies gradual argumentation semantics to propagate argumentative influence over the structure. Using the Webis-CMV-20 corpus, we construct CMV2BAS, a dataset of long, multi-threaded ChangeMyView discussions annotated with LLM-derived bipolar argument structures and labeled with delta events (view change vs.\ no change). We investigate whether gradual argumentation semantics can effectively detect persuasiveness, whether augmenting them with argument quality and graph-based centrality improves performance, and whether symbolic reasoning remains necessary in the presence of modern LLMs. NARS achieves F1=0.57 and AUC=0.56 under its best configuration, outperforming zero-shot Qwen3.6:27B and GPT-oss:20B. We identify support-dominant discussions and long argumentative chains as key failure modes limiting attack influence propagation. Our work demonstrates the feasibility of operationalizing formal gradual argumentation semantics over noisy real-world discourse for scalable macro-level persuasion analysis, while highlighting key challenges and directions for future research in neuro-symbolic argumentation reasoning. We release both CMV2BAS dataset and the NARS framework for public use.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Argument Structure Prediction in Online Conversations: A Comparative Study of Modeling Paradigms and Task Architectures

Argument structure prediction (ASP) constructs complete argument structures from discourse by identifying argumentative units and their relations. While recent work has explored diverse approaches---including unified neural models, multi-step pipelines, and prompt-based large language models (LLMs)---their relative trade-offs remain under-explored, particularly in dialogical settings. We present a systematic evaluation of ASP under strict schema constraints, comparing supervised fine-tuning and prompt-based LLMs across single- and multi-step task architectures, generating complete argument structures from dialogical input end-to-end. We benchmark them on three diverse dialogical corpora adapted from Inference Anchoring Theory into bipolar argument structures. Under a shared evaluation framework, we assess predictive performance, cross-domain generalization, schema compliance, and computational efficiency. Our results show that ASP remains a challenging task, with identifying argumentative relations emerging as the primary bottleneck, largely due to the implicit and context-dependent nature of dialogical argumentation. To facilitate future research, we release our data processing pipeline and end-to-end modeling framework for computational ASP on dialogical corpora.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Designing and Analysing Argument Mining Pipelines: Towards a Comprehensive Assessment

Argument Mining (AM) transforms natural language into its underlying argument structures. This transformation is typically realized through a sequence of AM tasks that form an end-to-end AM pipeline. However, AM approaches often differ in how they conceptualize these tasks, making direct comparisons between them difficult and opaque. This calls for a more nuanced, task-level analysis of AM approaches to enable clearer comparison and assessment. This work presents a preliminary meta-study that systematically reviews several state-of-the-art end-to-end AM works and analyzes their pipelines through a triple-perspective framework---a linguistic, computational and domain perspective---to understand how the pipelines model arguments as structures, computes them, and integrates domain knowledge. We further propose a general design to the linguistic and computational perspectives, illustrating how key AM tasks are designed for modeling and computation of argument structures. Our proposed framework lays the groundwork for methodology-centered descriptions across AM approaches, facilitating deeper understanding and more systematic comparisons in future research.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Can LLMs Evaluate What They Cannot Annotate? Revisiting LLM Reliability in Hate Speech Detection

Hate speech spreads widely online, harming individuals and communities, making automatic detection essential for large-scale moderation, yet detecting it remains difficult. Part of the challenge lies in subjectivity: what one person flags as hate speech, another may see as benign. Traditional annotation agreement metrics, such as Cohen's $κ$, oversimplify this disagreement, treating it as an error rather than meaningful diversity. Meanwhile, Large Language Models (LLMs) promise scalable annotation, but prior studies demonstrate that they cannot fully replace human judgement, especially in subjective tasks. In this work, we reexamine LLM reliability using a subjectivity-aware framework, cross-Rater Reliability (xRR), revealing that even under fairer lens, LLMs still diverge from humans. Yet this limitation opens an opportunity: we find that LLM-generated annotations can reliably reflect performance trends across classification models, correlating with human evaluations. We test this by examining whether LLM-generated annotations preserve the relative ordering of model performance derived from human evaluation (i.e. whether models ranked as more reliable by human annotators preserve the same order when evaluated with LLM-generated labels). Our results show that, although LLMs differ from humans at the instance level, they reproduce similar ranking and classification patterns, suggesting their potential as proxy evaluators. While not a substitute for human annotators, they might serve as a scalable proxy for evaluation in subjective NLP tasks.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Personalisation or Prejudice? Addressing Geographic Bias in Hate Speech Detection using Debias Tuning in Large Language Models

Commercial Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently incorporated memory features to deliver personalised responses. This memory retains details such as user demographics and individual characteristics, allowing LLMs to adjust their behaviour based on personal information. However, the impact of integrating personalised information into the context has not been thoroughly assessed, leading to questions about its influence on LLM behaviour. Personalisation can be challenging, particularly with sensitive topics. In this paper, we examine various state-of-the-art LLMs to understand their behaviour in different personalisation scenarios, specifically focusing on hate speech. We prompt the models to assume country-specific personas and use different languages for hate speech detection. Our findings reveal that context personalisation significantly influences LLMs' responses in this sensitive area. To mitigate these unwanted biases, we fine-tune the LLMs by penalising inconsistent hate speech classifications made with and without country or language-specific context. The refined models demonstrate improved performance in both personalised contexts and when no context is provided.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

MetaHate: A Dataset for Unifying Efforts on Hate Speech Detection

Hate speech represents a pervasive and detrimental form of online discourse, often manifested through an array of slurs, from hateful tweets to defamatory posts. As such speech proliferates, it connects people globally and poses significant social, psychological, and occasionally physical threats to targeted individuals and communities. Current computational linguistic approaches for tackling this phenomenon rely on labelled social media datasets for training. For unifying efforts, our study advances in the critical need for a comprehensive meta-collection, advocating for an extensive dataset to help counteract this problem effectively. We scrutinized over 60 datasets, selectively integrating those pertinent into MetaHate. This paper offers a detailed examination of existing collections, highlighting their strengths and limitations. Our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the existing datasets, paving the way for training more robust and adaptable models. These enhanced models are essential for effectively combating the dynamic and complex nature of hate speech in the digital realm.

cs.CL↗