Logical Embeddings for Argument Analysis

We propose a new framework for machine-learning-oriented argument analysis tasks. Our proposal involves replacing traditional contextualized word embeddings used in most NLP tasks with logical embeddings, an alternative encoding that directly exploits argumentation structures. In essence, logical embeddings encapsulate the logical semantics of an argument, allowing for a better representation of its meaning. Supporting these embeddings is a mathematical logic-based similarity measure that offers a transparent notion of proximity and is guaranteed to satisfy several desirable theoretical properties that current cosine similarity-based contextualized word embeddings cannot assure. This similarity measure induces a positive semi-definite kernel on the set of arguments, enabling us to uniquely define logical embeddings using the theory of Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces (RKHS). Moreover, we prove that this encoding is optimal, in the sense that no logical information is lost in the process. As with other RKHS applications, logical embeddings can be used in numerous supervised and unsupervised tasks. We provide an implementation of the method and aim to test it against literature benchmarks. Additionally, we demonstrate that logical embeddings outperform most standard embedding methods on a classification task.

TruthSplit: Operationalizing Conditional Validity in Arguments Through Multi-Perspective Reasoning

We present TruthSplit, an interactive system for multi-perspective argument analysis. Existing argumentation tools typically analyze properties of the argument itself, such as structure, quality, stance, or persuasiveness, while leaving perspective-specific background knowledge implicit. TruthSplit addresses this gap by supporting an exploratory analysis of how the same claim can lead to different conclusions when interpreted through worldview-specific values, assumptions, and conceptual definitions. We refer to this perspective-dependent analysis as conditional validity. Given an input argumentative text, TruthSplit extracts claims and premises, applies a three-layer natural language inference (NLI) approach to assess both logical and worldview-specific normative consistency, and conditions large language model (LLM) reasoning on structured worldview profiles that encode core values and decision principles. The system then generates perspective-specific interpretations, identifies value conflicts and assumption gaps, and visualizes divergence through interactive analytical interfaces.