Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Are LLMs Good Zero-Shot Fallacy Classifiers?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.15050 v1 pith:HKF57BXG submitted 2024-10-19 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords fallacyllmszero-shotclassifierspromptingreasoningschemesabilities
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Fallacies are defective arguments with faulty reasoning. Detecting and classifying them is a crucial NLP task to prevent misinformation, manipulative claims, and biased decisions. However, existing fallacy classifiers are limited by the requirement for sufficient labeled data for training, which hinders their out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization abilities. In this paper, we focus on leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) for zero-shot fallacy classification. To elicit fallacy-related knowledge and reasoning abilities of LLMs, we propose diverse single-round and multi-round prompting schemes, applying different task-specific instructions such as extraction, summarization, and Chain-of-Thought reasoning. With comprehensive experiments on benchmark datasets, we suggest that LLMs could be potential zero-shot fallacy classifiers. In general, LLMs under single-round prompting schemes have achieved acceptable zero-shot performances compared to the best full-shot baselines and can outperform them in all OOD inference scenarios and some open-domain tasks. Our novel multi-round prompting schemes can effectively bring about more improvements, especially for small LLMs. Our analysis further underlines the future research on zero-shot fallacy classification. Codes and data are available at: https://github.com/panFJCharlotte98/Fallacy_Detection.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. To trust or not to trust: Attention-based Trust Management for LLM Multi-Agent Systems

    cs.CR 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Introduces six-dimension trustworthiness definition and attention-based A-Trust score with a TMS to improve LLM-MAS robustness against malicious or unreliable messages.

Pith tools