ARBITRA: Robust Document-Level ATT&CK Extraction via Multi-Expert Argumentation

Counts differ because each database indexes a different set of publications. We treat OpenAlex as the canonical count; Google Scholar is not shown (no API, and crawling it violates its ToS).

Cyber threat intelligence (CTI) reports describe adversary behavior in natural language, but converting them into structured MITRE ATT&CK mappings remains difficult: existing methods decompose reports to sentence-level granularity for extraction, while modern LLMs can work with full reports in a single pass but with noticeable performance degradation. We present ARBITRA, which orchestrates multiple role-specialized LLM experts that propose candidate ATT&CK entities from the full report, which are then verified through a per-candidate quantitative bipolar argumentation framework (QBAF) grounded in document evidence and rationales. We additionally construct reasoning-specialized corpora for fine-tuning so experts can act as effective participants during this verification process. Across ATT&CK extraction benchmarks, ARBITRA reaches a stronger precision-oriented operating point than sentence-level pipelines, recent LLM-based extraction systems, and frontier models including GPT-5.5. Under adversarial perturbations simulating conflicting TTP statements, cross-report contamination, and semantic poisoning, ARBITRA limits mean precision degradation to roughly half that of frontier-model baselines for a more robust extraction.