A dataset of rated conceptual arguments - arXiv 2607.27499 v1

Aug 30, 2026

A dataset is presented for evaluating conceptual reasoning in large language models by focusing on arguments rather than unattainable ground-truth answers for philosophical and other inherently unresolved questions. The work motivates conceptual questions as cases with no realistically accessible definitive answer and no widely accepted resolution method. It proposes a multi-dimensional evaluation approach that rates contextualized arguments, argues that such evaluations can be easier and more objective than judging conclusions, and explains how argument quality supports progress toward bottom-line judgments.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages35

Reading Time1 h 28 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

A high-level approach: multi-dimensional evaluation of contextualized arguments

arXiv :2607 .27499v 1 [ cs .AI] 29 Jul 2026 A dataset of rated conceptual arguments Emery Cooper* Caspar Oesterheld* Linh Chi Nguyen Alexander Kastner Ethan Perez September 19, 2025 1 Introduction In recent years, the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have progressed impressively across a wide range of domains. Over the past year or so, so-called reasoning models have made rapid progress on tasks with verifiable feedback, such as coding and math (Jaech et al. 2024; Guo et al. 2025; A. Yang et al. 2025) . In light of concerns about the risks of AI development (such as misalignment (e.g., Bostrom 2014), mass unemployment and concentration of power, and gradual disempowerment (Kulveit et al. 2025)), a variety of authors have proposed agendas of differential acceleration: making models better at specific skills that are likely to have positive impact on the world and perhaps ones that aren’t closely tied to general capabilities. Proposals include using AI specifically for AI safety (e.g. , Carlsmith 2025), using AI for science (e.g., Bengio et al. 2025), and improving AI’s ability to achieve cooperation and avoid conflict in multi-agent situations (Dafoe et al. 2020; Clifton 2020; Critch and Krueger 2020; Conitzer and Oesterheld 2023; Hammond et al. 2025) . In this project, we want to specifically work toward making AI better at (helping humans with) reasoning about what we call conceptual questions. By this, we roughly mean questions with two properties: • We have no (realistically accessible) ground truth answer to the question; and no widely accepted methodology for resolving the question. • We can make progress by considering and debating arguments. Most philosophical issues (e.g., ethics, the nature of free will and consciousness) are prime examples of conceptual questions. Mathematical questions (e.g., “is there a polynomial-time prime factorization algorithm”, “is the Riemann conjecture true?”) and many empirical questions (e.g., “can chemical compound X cause cancer?”) are paradigmatic examples of non-conceptual questions. Many important areas mix conceptual and non-conceptual issues. For instance, social aggregation of preferences might involve conceptual questions such as: “Does formalization X faithfully represent intuitive concept Y?”, “In light of the multiplicity of equilibria, what is a ‘good’/‘fair’ equilibrium in this situation?”, “What properties should a voting rule have?”, etc. At the same time, it also involves various non-conceptual questions, such as whether a given set of voting-theoretic axioms is mutually inconsistent. 1.1 A high-level approach: multi-dimensional evaluation of contextualized arguments The main obstacle to improving LLMs’ conceptual reasoning is that we don’t have access to ground truth on conceptual questions. E.g., we don’t know whether utilitarianism is the best normative ethical theory, whether humans have free will, whether GPT-5 is conscious, etc. Our approach to circumventing this problem is based on the following theses: 1. It is possible to evaluate arguments about conceptual topics. (a) On philosophical issues, it is easier (less contentious and subjective) to evaluate arguments than it is to evaluate bottom-line conclusions. (b) It’s easier to evaluate contextualized arguments. That is, it’s easier to evaluate an argument if it is placed in context of existing arguments, considerations, claims, and theories. (c) Sometimes it’s easier to evaluate arguments on specific dimensions – e.g., how central they are to a particular issue – than holistically. 2. Evaluating arguments is useful to make progress on bottom-line conclusions on conceptual topics. To illustrate the first theses, consider the following example. It’s hard to say whether utilitarianism is a good (or the best) moral theory. But we can, to some extent, evaluate arguments for or against utilitarianism, especially if we are given a context of existing arguments, conside

FAQs

What are conceptual questions in this work?

Conceptual questions are defined as issues with no realistically accessible ground-truth answer and no widely accepted methodology for resolving them, where progress can be made by considering and debating arguments.

Why is evaluating arguments useful when ground truth is unavailable?

The approach claims that arguments about conceptual topics can be evaluated more easily than bottom-line conclusions, and contextualized arguments provide a structured basis for evaluation across dimensions.

How does the proposed evaluation method differ from judging final conclusions?

Rather than requiring a definitive verdict on unresolved conclusions, the method evaluates contextualized arguments along specific dimensions, enabling assessment even when the ultimate answer cannot be directly verified.

Aug 30, 2026

Upload by Emma Mercer