Critical Questions Generation: Motivation and Challenges
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The development of Large Language Models (LLMs) has brought impressive performances on mitigation strategies against misinformation, such as counterargument generation. However, LLMs are still seriously hindered by outdated knowledge and by their tendency to generate hallucinated content. In order to circumvent these issues, we propose a new task, namely, Critical Questions Generation, consisting of processing an argumentative text to generate the critical questions (CQs) raised by it. In argumentation theory CQs are tools designed to lay bare the blind spots of an argument by pointing at the information it could be missing. Thus, instead of trying to deploy LLMs to produce knowledgeable and relevant counterarguments, we use them to question arguments, without requiring any external knowledge. Research on CQs Generation using LLMs requires a reference dataset for large scale experimentation. Thus, in this work we investigate two complementary methods to create such a resource: (i) instantiating CQs templates as defined by Walton's argumentation theory and (ii), using LLMs as CQs generators. By doing so, we contribute with a procedure to establish what is a valid CQ and conclude that, while LLMs are reasonable CQ generators, they still have a wide margin for improvement in this task.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Oct 2024.
Builds on
14 of 43 references.
References · 14
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,975
- 2023Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 2,212
- 2018FEVER: a large-scale dataset for Fact Extraction and VERificationcited by 1,375
- 2019CONAN -- COunter NArratives through Nichesourcing: a Multilingual Dataset of Responses to Fight Online Hate Speechcited by 110
- 2023Are Large Language Models Really Good Logical Reasoners? A Comprehensive Evaluation and Beyondcited by 65
- 2019BERT for Evidence Retrieval and Claim Verificationcited by 57
- 2023Large Language Models Are Not Strong Abstract Reasonerscited by 53
- 2023Exploring the Potential of Large Language Models in Computational Argumentationcited by 42
- 2023Multitask Instruction-based Prompting for Fallacy Recognitioncited by 23
- 2023How susceptible are LLMs to Logical Fallacies?cited by 23
- 2021Classifying Argumentative Relations Using Logical Mechanisms and Argumentation Schemescited by 18
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 2.
3 papers.
- 2024Incivility and Rigidity: Evaluating the Risks of Fine-Tuning LLMs for Political Argumentationcited by 1
- 2025DayDreamer at CQs-Gen 2025: Generating Critical Questions through Argument Scheme Completioncited by 0
- 2025ELLIS Alicante at CQs-Gen 2025: Winning the critical thinking questions shared task: LLM-based question generation and selectioncited by 0
- 2025ELLIS Alicante at CQs-Gen 2025: Winning the critical thinking questions shared task: LLM-based question generation and selection17 Jun 2025
- 2025DayDreamer at CQs-Gen 2025: Generating Critical Questions through Argument Scheme Completion21 May 2025
- 2024Incivility and Rigidity: Evaluating the Risks of Fine-Tuning LLMs for Political Argumentation25 Nov 2024