Papers › Are LLMs Good Zero-Shot Fallacy Classifiers?

Are LLMs Good Zero-Shot Fallacy Classifiers?

19 Oct 2024arXiv:2410.15050archive 2025-07-28

Fengjun Pan, Xiaobao Wu, Zongrui Li, Anh Tuan Luu

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.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

5 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 5 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 5 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from panfjcharlotte98/fallacy_detection. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections