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

Abstract

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.