(1) Background and objectives: Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT, Mistral, and LLaMA exhibit strong capabilities in text generation, yet assessing the quality of their reasoning—particularly in open-ended and argumentative contexts—remains a persistent challenge. This study introduces Dialectical Agent, an internally developed modular framework designed to evaluate reasoning through a structured three-stage process: opinion, counterargument, and synthesis. The framework enables transparent and comparative analysis of how different LLMs handle dialectical reasoning. (2) Methods: Each stage is executed by a single model, and final syntheses are scored via two independent LLM evaluators (LLaMA 3.1 and GPT-4o) based on a rubric with four dimensions: clarity, coherence, originality, and dialecticality. In parallel, a rule-based semantic analyzer detects rhetorical anomalies and ethical values. All outputs and metadata are stored in a Neo4j graph database for structured exploration. (3) Results: The system was applied to four open-weight models (Gemma 7B, Mistral 7B, Dolphin-Mistral, Zephyr 7B) across ten open-ended prompts on ethical, political, and technological topics. The results show consistent stylistic and semantic variation across models, with moderate inter-rater agreement. Semantic diagnostics revealed differences in value expression and rhetorical flaws not captured by rubric scores. (4) Originality: The framework is, to our knowledge, the first to integrate multi-stage reasoning, rubric-based and semantic evaluation, and graph-based storage into a single system. It enables replicable, interpretable, and multidimensional assessment of generative reasoning—supporting researchers, developers, and educators working with LLMs in high-stakes contexts.
Anghel et al. (2025) studied this question.