Argumentative Large Language Models for Explainable and Contestable Decision-Making

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.02079v1
• Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 13:12:28 GMT
• Title: Argumentative Large Language Models for Explainable and Contestable Decision-Making
• Authors: Gabriel Freedman, Adam Dejl, Deniz Gorur, Xiang Yin, Antonio Rago, Francesca Toni,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are a promising candidate for use in decision-making. They are limited by their inability to reliably provide outputs which are explainable and contestable. We introduce argumentative LLMs, a method utilising LLMs to construct argumentation frameworks. We demonstrate the effectiveness of argumentative LLMs experimentally in the decision-making task of claim verification.
• Score: 13.045050015831903
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The diversity of knowledge encoded in large language models (LLMs) and their ability to apply this knowledge zero-shot in a range of settings makes them a promising candidate for use in decision-making. However, they are currently limited by their inability to reliably provide outputs which are explainable and contestable. In this paper, we attempt to reconcile these strengths and weaknesses by introducing a method for supplementing LLMs with argumentative reasoning. Concretely, we introduce argumentative LLMs, a method utilising LLMs to construct argumentation frameworks, which then serve as the basis for formal reasoning in decision-making. The interpretable nature of these argumentation frameworks and formal reasoning means that any decision made by the supplemented LLM may be naturally explained to, and contested by, humans. We demonstrate the effectiveness of argumentative LLMs experimentally in the decision-making task of claim verification. We obtain results that are competitive with, and in some cases surpass, comparable state-of-the-art techniques.

Related papers

• Critical-Questions-of-Thought: Steering LLM reasoning with Argumentative Querying [0.3659498819753633]
  State-of-the-art Large Language models (LLMs) continue to struggle when performing logical and mathematical reasoning. This paper makes use of the notion of critical questions from the literature on argumentation theory, focusing in particular on Toulmin's model of argumentation. We show that employing these critical questions can improve the reasoning capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T18:51:30Z)
• Make LLMs better zero-shot reasoners: Structure-orientated autonomous reasoning [52.83539473110143]
  We introduce a novel structure-oriented analysis method to help Large Language Models (LLMs) better understand a question. To further improve the reliability in complex question-answering tasks, we propose a multi-agent reasoning system, Structure-oriented Autonomous Reasoning Agents (SARA) Extensive experiments verify the effectiveness of the proposed reasoning system. Surprisingly, in some cases, the system even surpasses few-shot methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T05:30:33Z)
• Embodied Agent Interface: Benchmarking LLMs for Embodied Decision Making [85.24399869971236]
  We aim to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) for embodied decision making. Existing evaluations tend to rely solely on a final success rate. We propose a generalized interface (Embodied Agent Interface) that supports the formalization of various types of tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T17:59:00Z)
• Alignment Between the Decision-Making Logic of LLMs and Human Cognition: A Case Study on Legal LLMs [43.67312098562139]
  This paper presents a method to evaluate the alignment between the decision-making logic of Large Language Models and human cognition. We quantify the interactions encoded by the LLM as primitive decision-making logic. Experiments show that even when the language generation results appear correct, a significant portion of the internal inference logic contains notable issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T08:33:39Z)
• Deconfounded Causality-aware Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning for Problem-Solving Improvement of LLMs [12.48241058167222]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable efficiency in tackling various tasks based on human instructions. But studies reveal that they often struggle with tasks requiring reasoning, such as math or physics limitation. This raises questions about whether LLMs truly comprehend embedded knowledge or merely learn to replicate the token distribution without a true understanding of the content. We propose Decon Causal Adaptation (DCA), a novel parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) method to enhance the model's reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-04T13:17:09Z)
• Can formal argumentative reasoning enhance LLMs performances? [0.3659498819753633]
  We present a pipeline (MQArgEng) to evaluate the effect of introducing computational argumentation semantics on the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) Exploratory results indicate that MQArgEng provides a moderate performance gain in most of the examined topical categories and, as such, show promise and warrant further research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-16T22:09:31Z)
• Counterfactual and Semifactual Explanations in Abstract Argumentation: Formal Foundations, Complexity and Computation [19.799266797193344]
  Argumentation-based systems often lack explainability while supporting decision-making processes. Counterfactual and semifactual explanations are interpretability techniques. We show that counterfactual and semifactual queries can be encoded in weak-constrained Argumentation Framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-07T07:27:27Z)
• Verification and Refinement of Natural Language Explanations through LLM-Symbolic Theorem Proving [13.485604499678262]
  This paper investigates the verification and refinement of natural language explanations through the integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Theorem Provers (TPs) We present a neuro-symbolic framework, named Explanation-Refiner, that integrates TPs with LLMs to generate and formalise explanatory sentences. In turn, the TP is employed to provide formal guarantees on the logical validity of the explanations and to generate feedback for subsequent improvements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T15:20:01Z)
• Look Before You Decide: Prompting Active Deduction of MLLMs for Assumptive Reasoning [68.83624133567213]
  We show that most prevalent MLLMs can be easily fooled by the introduction of a presupposition into the question. We also propose a simple yet effective method, Active Deduction (AD), to encourage the model to actively perform composite deduction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T15:53:27Z)
• Enhancing Ethical Explanations of Large Language Models through Iterative Symbolic Refinement [5.108863224378874]
  This paper investigates how hybrid neuro-symbolic techniques can enhance the logical validity and alignment of ethical explanations. We present an abductive-deductive framework named Logic-Explainer, which integrates Large Language Models with an external backward-chaining solver. An empirical analysis demonstrates that Logic-Explainer can improve explanations generated via in-context learning methods and Chain-of-Thought.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-01T16:39:51Z)
• LLMs for Relational Reasoning: How Far are We? [8.840750655261251]
  Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized many areas by achieving state-of-the-art performance on downstream tasks. Recent efforts have demonstrated that the LLMs are poor at solving sequential decision-making problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-17T08:22:52Z)
• LaRS: Latent Reasoning Skills for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [61.7853049843921]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting is a popular in-context learning approach for large language models (LLMs) This paper introduces a new approach named Latent Reasoning Skills (LaRS) that employs unsupervised learning to create a latent space representation of rationales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-07T20:36:10Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• A Principled Framework for Knowledge-enhanced Large Language Model [58.1536118111993]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are versatile, yet they often falter in tasks requiring deep and reliable reasoning. This paper introduces a rigorously designed framework for creating LLMs that effectively anchor knowledge and employ a closed-loop reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-18T18:10:02Z)
• Neuro-Symbolic Integration Brings Causal and Reliable Reasoning Proofs [95.07757789781213]
  Two lines of approaches are adopted for complex reasoning with LLMs. One line of work prompts LLMs with various reasoning structures, while the structural outputs can be naturally regarded as intermediate reasoning steps. The other line of work adopt LLM-free declarative solvers to do the reasoning task, rendering higher reasoning accuracy but lacking interpretability due to the black-box nature of the solvers. We present a simple extension to the latter line of work. Specifically, we showcase that the intermediate search logs generated by Prolog interpreters can be accessed and interpreted into human-readable reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T11:26:21Z)
• A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [73.77088902676306]
  We take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models (LLMs) in the context of logical reasoning. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:13:10Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [47.84663434179473]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way. Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• Towards LogiGLUE: A Brief Survey and A Benchmark for Analyzing Logical Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models [56.34029644009297]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to overcome various limitations of formal Knowledge Representation (KR) systems. LLMs excel most in abductive reasoning, followed by deductive reasoning, while they are least effective at inductive reasoning. We study single-task training, multi-task training, and "chain-of-thought" knowledge distillation fine-tuning technique to assess the performance of model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T01:00:50Z)
• Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate [85.3444184685235]
  We propose a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework, in which multiple agents express their arguments in the state of "tit for tat" and a judge manages the debate process to obtain a final solution. Our framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T15:25:45Z)
• ChatABL: Abductive Learning via Natural Language Interaction with ChatGPT [72.83383437501577]
  Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated significant potential in mathematical abilities. LLMs currently have difficulty in bridging perception, language understanding and reasoning capabilities. This paper presents a novel method for integrating LLMs into the abductive learning framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-21T16:23:47Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.