Argument generation is a fundamental NLP task that aims to automatically produce persuasive arguments.Effective human argumentation is inherently complex and multifaceted, integrating argumentative strategies, appropriate styles, and adaptation to target audiences, etc.However, existing studies focus on limited control signals such as topic, stance, or key aspects, failing to capture this complexity.As LLMs advance, the lack of benchmarks evaluating multifaceted argumentative control becomes a critical bottleneck.To address this, we introduce ArgGenBench, a novel benchmark containing complex instructions that integrate multi-dimensional control, including topic, stance, length, style, strategy, audience, and key points.Extensive evaluation across 15 LLMs reveals significant limitations: even the best-performing model achieves only 42.7% win rate against human-verified references.These results highlight the challenge of controlled argument generation and establish ArgGenBench as a rigorous testbed for developing more capable systems.

The advancement of Argument Mining (AM) is hindered by a critical bottleneck: the scarcity of structure-annotated datasets, which are expensive to create manually. Inspired by recent successes in synthetic data generation across various NLP tasks, this paper explores methodologies for LLMs to generate synthetic data for AM.We investigate two complementary synthesis perspectives: a quality-oriented synthesis approach, which employs structure-aware paraphrasing to preserve annotation quality, and a diversity-oriented synthesis approach, which generates novel argumentative texts with diverse topics and argument structures.Experiments on three datasets show that augmenting original training data with our synthetic data, particularly when combining both quality- and diversity-oriented instances, significantly enhances the performance of existing AM models, both in full-data and low-resource settings.Moreover, the positive correlation between synthetic data volume and model performance highlights the scalability of our methods.

Argument quality assessment faces inherent challenges due to its subjective nature, where different evaluators may assign varying quality scores for an argument based on personal perspectives. Although existing datasets collect opinions from multiple annotators to model subjectivity, most existing computational methods fail to consider multi-perspective evaluation. To address this issue, we propose MPAQ, a multi-persona framework for argument quality assessment that simulates diverse evaluator perspectives through large language models. It first dynamically generates targeted personas tailored to an input argument, then simulates each persona’s reasoning process to evaluate the argument quality from multiple perspectives. To effectively generate fine-grained quality scores, we develop a coarse-to-fine scoring strategy that first generates a coarse-grained integer score and then refines it into a fine-grained decimal score. Experiments on IBM-Rank-30k and IBM-ArgQ-5.3kArgs datasets demonstrate that MPAQ consistently outperforms strong baselines while providing comprehensive multi-perspective rationales.