ARGORA: Orchestrated Argumentation for Causally Grounded LLM Reasoning and Decision Making

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.21533v1
• Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 10:48:04 GMT
• Title: ARGORA: Orchestrated Argumentation for Causally Grounded LLM Reasoning and Decision Making
• Authors: Youngjin Jin, Hanna Kim, Kwanwoo Kim, Chanhee Lee, Seungwon Shin,
• Abstract summary: We introduce ARGORA, a framework that organizes multi-expert discussions into explicit argumentation graphs.<n>ARGORA can remove individual arguments and recompute outcomes, identifying which reasoning chains were necessary.<n>We further introduce a correction mechanism that aligns internal reasoning with external judgments when they disagree.
• Score: 11.531465685641086
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Existing multi-expert LLM systems gather diverse perspectives but combine them through simple aggregation, obscuring which arguments drove the final decision. We introduce ARGORA, a framework that organizes multi-expert discussions into explicit argumentation graphs showing which arguments support or attack each other. By casting these graphs as causal models, ARGORA can systematically remove individual arguments and recompute outcomes, identifying which reasoning chains were necessary and whether decisions would change under targeted modifications. We further introduce a correction mechanism that aligns internal reasoning with external judgments when they disagree. Across diverse benchmarks and an open-ended use case, ARGORA achieves competitive accuracy and demonstrates corrective behavior: when experts initially disagree, the framework resolves disputes toward correct answers more often than it introduces new errors, while providing causal diagnostics of decisive arguments.

Related papers

• Adaptive Collaboration of Arena-Based Argumentative LLMs for Explainable and Contestable Legal Reasoning [1.4988096015658898]
  ACAL is a neuro-symbolic framework that integrates adaptive multi-agent collaboration with an Arena-based Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework (A-QBAF)<n>ACAL dynamically deploys expert agent teams to construct arguments, employs a clash resolution mechanism to adjudicate conflicting claims, and utilizes uncertainty-aware escalation for borderline cases.<n>Our framework supports a Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) contestability workflow, enabling users to directly audit and modify the underlying reasoning graph to influence the final judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-21T17:47:13Z)
• Towards Generalizable Reasoning: Group Causal Counterfactual Policy Optimization for LLM Reasoning [50.352417879912515]
  Large language models (LLMs) excel at complex tasks with advances in reasoning capabilities.<n>We propose Group Causal Counterfactual Policy Optimization to explicitly train LLMs to learn generalizable reasoning patterns.<n>We then construct token-level advantages from this reward and optimize the policy, encouraging LLMs to favor reasoning patterns that are process-valid and counterfactually robust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T08:03:11Z)
• CoT-Seg: Rethinking Segmentation with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning and Self-Correction [50.67483317563736]
  This paper aims to explore a system that can think step-by-step, look up information if needed, generate results, self-evaluate its own results, and refine the results.<n>We introduce CoT-Seg, a training-free framework that rethinks reasoning segmentation by combining chain-of-thought reasoning with self-correction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-24T11:41:54Z)
• ART: Adaptive Reasoning Trees for Explainable Claim Verification [11.001890567834094]
  ART (Adaptive Reasoning Trees) is a hierarchical method for claim verification.<n>An argument's strength is determined bottom-up via a pairwise tournament of its children.<n>Our findings show that ART's structured reasoning outperforms strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-09T01:01:55Z)
• Adversarial Yet Cooperative: Multi-Perspective Reasoning in Retrieved-Augmented Language Models [72.4149653187766]
  We propose a Reasoner-Verifier framework named Adrialversa Reasoning RAG (ARR)<n>The Reasoner and Verifier engage in reasoning on retrieved evidence and critiquing each other's logic while being guided by process-aware advantage.<n> Experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T06:57:03Z)
• ArgRAG: Explainable Retrieval Augmented Generation using Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation [37.816652871790474]
  We propose ArgRAG, an explainable, and contestable alternative that replaces black-box reasoning with structured inference.<n>ArgRAG constructs a QBAF from retrieved documents and performs deterministic reasoning under gradual semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-26T13:54:51Z)
• LAG: Logic-Augmented Generation from a Cartesian Perspective [7.2022636966543745]
  This paper introduces Logic-Augmented Generation (LAG), a novel paradigm that reframes knowledge augmentation through systematic question decomposition and dependency-aware reasoning.<n>Experiments on four benchmark datasets demonstrate that LAG significantly enhances reasoning robustness, reduces hallucination, and aligns LLM problem-solving with human cognition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-07T15:42:00Z)
• Towards Agentic RAG with Deep Reasoning: A Survey of RAG-Reasoning Systems in LLMs [69.10441885629787]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) lifts the factuality of Large Language Models (LLMs) by injecting external knowledge.<n>It falls short on problems that demand multi-step inference; conversely, purely reasoning-oriented approaches often hallucinate or mis-ground facts.<n>This survey synthesizes both strands under a unified reasoning-retrieval perspective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-13T03:29:41Z)
• Retrieval is Not Enough: Enhancing RAG Reasoning through Test-Time Critique and Optimization [58.390885294401066]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become a widely adopted paradigm for enabling knowledge-grounded large language models (LLMs)<n>RAG pipelines often fail to ensure that model reasoning remains consistent with the evidence retrieved, leading to factual inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions.<n>We propose AlignRAG, a novel iterative framework grounded in Critique-Driven Alignment (CDA)<n>We introduce AlignRAG-auto, an autonomous variant that dynamically terminates refinement, removing the need to pre-specify the number of critique iterations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T04:56:47Z)
• Aggregation of Reasoning: A Hierarchical Framework for Enhancing Answer Selection in Large Language Models [84.15513004135576]
  Current research enhances the reasoning performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) by sampling multiple reasoning chains and ensembling based on the answer frequency. This approach fails in scenarios where the correct answers are in the minority. We introduce a hierarchical reasoning aggregation framework AoR, which selects answers based on the evaluation of reasoning chains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-21T17:12:19Z)
• Sentiment Analysis through LLM Negotiations [58.67939611291001]
  A standard paradigm for sentiment analysis is to rely on a singular LLM and makes the decision in a single round. This paper introduces a multi-LLM negotiation framework for sentiment analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T12:35:29Z)

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.