# Embedding Models for Stance-Aware Argument Retrieval

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28283 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.28283/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 22 of its 32 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 22 of 22)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.04906/) (2020)
- [Qwen3 Embedding: Advancing Text Embedding and Reranking Through Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.05176/) (2025)
- [Approximate Nearest Neighbor Negative Contrastive Learning for Dense Text Retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.00808/) (2020)
- [Passage Re-ranking with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.04085/) (2019)
- [C-Pack: Packed Resources For General Chinese Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07597/) (2023)
- [One Embedder, Any Task: Instruction-Finetuned Text Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09741/) (2022)
- [Efficiently Teaching an Effective Dense Retriever with Balanced Topic Aware Sampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.06967/) (2021)
- [Promptagator: Few-shot Dense Retrieval From 8 Examples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.11755/) (2022)
- [Efficient Natural Language Response Suggestion for Smart Reply](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.00652/) (2017)
- [AVeriTeC: A Dataset for Real-world Claim Verification with Evidence from the Web](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13117/) (2023)
- [UnNatural Language Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.00010/) (2020)
- [FollowIR: Evaluating and Teaching Information Retrieval Models to Follow Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.15246/) (2024)
- [Argumentative Large Language Models for Explainable and Contestable Claim Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.02079/) (2024)
- [INSTRUCTIR: A Benchmark for Instruction Following of Information Retrieval Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14334/) (2024)
- [Can Large Language Models perform Relation-based Argument Mining?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11243/) (2024)
- [A Survey of Model Architectures in Information Retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.14822/) (2025)
- [Towards Better Instruction Following Retrieval Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.21439/) (2025)
- [The Evolution of Reranking Models in Information Retrieval: From Heuristic Methods to Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.16236/) (2025)
- [Neurosymbolic Learning for Inference-Time Argumentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.20098/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In computational argumentation, obtaining arguments that explicitly support or attack given claims is a critical precursor to downstream reasoning tasks. When these supporting and attacking arguments are to be retrieved using semantic search methods, they need to be assessed for topic-relevance to the claims of interest as well as for correctness of their (positive or negative) stance towards the claims. In this paper we explore how dense embedding models (hereafter, models), powering modern retrieval pipelines, can serve as the basis of semantic search incorporating this dual assessment. We show experimentally that existing models struggle with asymmetric reasoning, exhibiting a strong bias toward topical overlap while ignoring instructional stance. We also show that correcting this bias via contrastive training triggers a new failure mode where models over-correct, over-fixating on polarity keywords (e.g., "supports" or "refutes") at the expense of the semantic topic. We thus introduce diagnostic word-ablation metrics to quantify this phenomenon and propose a data-centric solution. By implementing a balanced argument curriculum alongside LLM-augmented, stance-inverted arguments, we force the (embedding) models to learn deeper directional logic rather than exploiting superficial lexical shortcuts. Our evaluation demonstrates that, for sufficiently powerful models, this approach can alleviate the observed overcorrection, achieving further improvements in stance-aware argument retrieval.