This work investigates the role of dynamic external knowledge integration in improving counter-argument generation using Large Language Models (LLMs). While LLMs show promise in argumentative tasks, their tendency to generate lengthy, potentially unfactual responses highlights the need for more controlled and evidence-based approaches. We introduce a new manually curated dataset of argument and counter-argument pairs specifically designed to balance argumentative complexity with evaluative feasibility. We also propose a new LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation methodology that shows a stronger correlation with human judgments compared to traditional reference-based metrics. Our experimental results demonstrate that integrating dynamic external knowledge from the web significantly improves the quality of generated counter-arguments, particularly in terms of relatedness, persuasiveness, and factuality.
| Component | Original | Intermediate | Final |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arguments | 16 sentences (372 words) | 3 sentences (83 words) | 3 sentences (61 words) |
| Counter-arguments | 30 sentences (921 words) | 5 sentences (165 words) | 3 sentences (72 words) |
| Model | Human Eval Rank | LLM Judge Rank | Key Strengths |
|---|---|---|---|
| Command R+ + External | 1 | 1 | Opposition, Factuality |
| Mistral-7B + External | 2 | =3 | Persuasiveness, Relatedness |
| Command R+ | 3 | 2 | Strong parametric knowledge |
| Mistral-7B | 4 | =3 | Baseline performance |
The study evaluated counter-arguments across five key dimensions:
If you use this work in your research, please cite:
@inproceedings{yeginbergen2025dynamic,
title={Dynamic Knowledge Integration for Evidence-Driven Counter-Argument Generation with Large Language Models},
author={Yeginbergen, Anar and Oronoz, Maite and Agerri, Rodrigo},
booktitle={ACL Findings},
year={2025}
}
24 commits
Python
100.0%
This work investigates the role of dynamic external knowledge integration in improving counter-argument generation using Large Language Models (LLMs). While LLMs show promise in argumentative tasks, their tendency to generate lengthy, potentially unfactual responses highlights the need for more controlled and evidence-based approaches. We introduce a new manually curated dataset of argument and counter-argument pairs specifically designed to balance argumentative complexity with evaluative feasibility. We also propose a new LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation methodology that shows a stronger correlation with human judgments compared to traditional reference-based metrics. Our experimental results demonstrate that integrating dynamic external knowledge from the web significantly improves the quality of generated counter-arguments, particularly in terms of relatedness, persuasiveness, and factuality.
| Component | Original | Intermediate | Final |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arguments | 16 sentences (372 words) | 3 sentences (83 words) | 3 sentences (61 words) |
| Counter-arguments | 30 sentences (921 words) | 5 sentences (165 words) | 3 sentences (72 words) |
| Model | Human Eval Rank | LLM Judge Rank | Key Strengths |
|---|---|---|---|
| Command R+ + External | 1 | 1 | Opposition, Factuality |
| Mistral-7B + External | 2 | =3 | Persuasiveness, Relatedness |
| Command R+ | 3 | 2 | Strong parametric knowledge |
| Mistral-7B | 4 | =3 | Baseline performance |
The study evaluated counter-arguments across five key dimensions:
If you use this work in your research, please cite:
@inproceedings{yeginbergen2025dynamic,
title={Dynamic Knowledge Integration for Evidence-Driven Counter-Argument Generation with Large Language Models},
author={Yeginbergen, Anar and Oronoz, Maite and Agerri, Rodrigo},
booktitle={ACL Findings},
year={2025}
}
24 commits
Python
100.0%