Automatic coherence-driven inference on arguments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.18523v1
• Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2025 01:40:14 GMT
• Title: Automatic coherence-driven inference on arguments
• Authors: Steve Huntsman,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) can accurately extract propositions from arguments and compile them into natural data structures.<n>This neurosymbolic architecture naturally separates concerns and enables meaningful judgments about the coherence of arguments.
• Score: 1.1929584800629671
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Inconsistencies are ubiquitous in law, administration, and jurisprudence. Though a cure is too much to hope for, we propose a technological remedy. Large language models (LLMs) can accurately extract propositions from arguments and compile them into natural data structures that enable coherence-driven inference (CDI) via combinatorial optimization. This neurosymbolic architecture naturally separates concerns and enables meaningful judgments about the coherence of arguments that can inform legislative and policy analysis and legal reasoning.

Related papers

• LLM-based Argument Mining meets Argumentation and Description Logics: a Unified Framework for Reasoning about Debates [18.314315278861073]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance in analyzing and generating text.<n>They struggle with explicit, transparent, and verifiable reasoning over complex texts such as those containing debates.<n>We propose a framework that integrates learning-based argument mining with quantitative reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T11:06:23Z)
• Argumentation-Based Explainability for Legal AI: Comparative and Regulatory Perspectives [0.9668407688201359]
  Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly deployed in legal contexts.<n>The so-called black box problem'' undermines legitimacy of automated decision-making.<n>XAI has proposed a variety of methods to enhance transparency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T07:19:15Z)
• Judicial Requirements for Generative AI in Legal Reasoning [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are being integrated into professional domains, yet their limitations in high-stakes fields like law remain poorly understood.<n>This paper defines the core capabilities that an AI system must possess to function as a reliable reasoning tool in judicial decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-26T09:56:26Z)
• Few-shot Policy (de)composition in Conversational Question Answering [54.259440408606515]
  We propose a neuro-symbolic framework to detect policy compliance using large language models (LLMs) in a few-shot setting.<n>We show that our approach soundly reasons about policy compliance conversations by extracting sub-questions to be answered, assigning truth values from contextual information, and explicitly producing a set of logic statements from the given policies.<n>We apply this approach to the popular PCD and conversational machine reading benchmark, ShARC, and show competitive performance with no task-specific finetuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-20T08:40:15Z)
• 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)
• DELTA: Pre-train a Discriminative Encoder for Legal Case Retrieval via Structural Word Alignment [55.91429725404988]
  We introduce DELTA, a discriminative model designed for legal case retrieval. We leverage shallow decoders to create information bottlenecks, aiming to enhance the representation ability. Our approach can outperform existing state-of-the-art methods in legal case retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T10:40:14Z)
• An Encoding of Abstract Dialectical Frameworks into Higher-Order Logic [57.24311218570012]
  This approach allows for the computer-assisted analysis of abstract dialectical frameworks. Exemplary applications include the formal analysis and verification of meta-theoretical properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-08T09:32:26Z)
• Technical Report on the Learning of Case Relevance in Case-Based Reasoning with Abstract Argumentation [14.755026411356315]
  We show how relevance can be learnt automatically in practice with the help of decision trees. We also show that AA-CBR with decision-tree-based learning of case relevance results in a more compact representation than their decision tree counterparts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T15:01:41Z)
• 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.<n>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)
• Modeling Hierarchical Reasoning Chains by Linking Discourse Units and Key Phrases for Reading Comprehension [80.99865844249106]
  We propose a holistic graph network (HGN) which deals with context at both discourse level and word level, as the basis for logical reasoning. Specifically, node-level and type-level relations, which can be interpreted as bridges in the reasoning process, are modeled by a hierarchical interaction mechanism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-21T07:34:27Z)
• Legal Detection of AI Products Based on Formal Argumentation and Legal Ontology [4.286330841427189]
  Current paper presents a structured argumentation framework for reasoning in legal contexts. We show that using this combined theory of formal argumentation and DL-based legal logic, acceptable assertions can be obtained.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-07T11:08:08Z)
• A Formalisation of Abstract Argumentation in Higher-Order Logic [77.34726150561087]
  We present an approach for representing abstract argumentation frameworks based on an encoding into classical higher-order logic. This provides a uniform framework for computer-assisted assessment of abstract argumentation frameworks using interactive and automated reasoning tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T10:45:59Z)
• Explainable Automated Reasoning in Law using Probabilistic Epistemic Argumentation [6.85316573653194]
  We introduce a general scheme to model legal cases as probabilistic argumentation problems. We show how evidence can be modeled and sketch how explanations for legal decisions can be generated automatically. Our framework is easily interpretable, can deal with cyclic structures and guarantees imprecise-time probabilistic reasoning in the worst-case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-12T15:40:42Z)

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.