Tangming Yuan | Searcharxiv

arXiv2025

The Thin Line Between Comprehension and Persuasion in LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) are excellent at maintaining high-level, convincing dialogue, but it remains unclear whether their persuasive success reflects genuine understanding of the discourse. We examine this question through informal debates between humans and LLMs, first by measuring their persuasive skills, and then by relating these to their understanding of _what_ is being talked about: namely, their comprehension of argumentative structures and the pragmatic context on the same debates. We find that LLMs effectively maintain coherent, persuasive debates, and can sway the beliefs of both participants and audiences. We also note that awareness or suspicion of AI involvement encourage people to be more critical of the arguments made. However, we also find that LLMs are unable to show comprehension of deeper dialogical structures, such as argument quality or existence of supporting premises. Our results reveal a disconnect between LLM comprehension and dialogical skills, raising ethical and practical concerns on their deployment on explanation-critical contexts. From an argumentation-theoretical perspective, we experimentally question whether an agent, if it can convincingly maintain a dialogue, is required to show it knows what is talking about.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

"I'd Like to Have an Argument, Please": Argumentative Reasoning in Large Language Models

We evaluate two large language models (LLMs) ability to perform argumentative reasoning. We experiment with argument mining (AM) and argument pair extraction (APE), and evaluate the LLMs' ability to recognize arguments under progressively more abstract input and output (I/O) representations (e.g., arbitrary label sets, graphs, etc.). Unlike the well-known evaluation of prompt phrasings, abstraction evaluation retains the prompt's phrasing but tests reasoning capabilities. We find that scoring-wise the LLMs match or surpass the SOTA in AM and APE, and under certain I/O abstractions LLMs perform well, even beating chain-of-thought--we call this symbolic prompting. However, statistical analysis on the LLMs outputs when subject to small, yet still human-readable, alterations in the I/O representations (e.g., asking for BIO tags as opposed to line numbers) showed that the models are not performing reasoning. This suggests that LLM applications to some tasks, such as data labelling and paper reviewing, must be done with care.

cs.CL↗