Argumentation for Explainable and Globally Contestable Decision Support with LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.14643v1
• Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2026 22:37:14 GMT
• Title: Argumentation for Explainable and Globally Contestable Decision Support with LLMs
• Abstract summary: ArgEval is a framework that shifts from instance-specific reasoning to structured evaluation of general decision options.<n>These frameworks provide explainable recommendations for specific cases while still supporting global contestability.<n>We show that ArgEval can produce explainable guidance aligned with clinical practice.
• Score: 16.75184263883707
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) exhibit strong general capabilities, but their deployment in high-stakes domains is hindered by their opacity and unpredictability. Recent work has taken meaningful steps towards addressing these issues by augmenting LLMs with post-hoc reasoning based on computational argumentation, providing faithful explanations and enabling users to contest incorrect decisions. However, this paradigm is limited to pre-defined binary choices and only supports local contestation for specific instances, leaving the underlying decision logic unchanged and prone to repeated mistakes. In this paper, we introduce ArgEval, a framework that shifts from instance-specific reasoning to structured evaluation of general decision options. Rather than mining arguments solely for individual cases, ArgEval systematically maps task-specific decision spaces, builds corresponding option ontologies, and constructs general argumentation frameworks (AFs) for each option. These frameworks can then be instantiated to provide explainable recommendations for specific cases while still supporting global contestability through modification of the shared AFs. We investigate the effectiveness of ArgEval on treatment recommendation for glioblastoma, an aggressive brain tumour, and show that it can produce explainable guidance aligned with clinical practice.

Related papers

• CLAIM: Leading Open-domain Active Clarification of Large Language Models with Uncertainty Measurement [50.91045324738942]
  CLAIM is an uncertainty-driven framework for active clarification learning in open-domain settings.<n>We propose an entropy-driven synthetic data generation pipeline that integrates uncertainty estimation with semantic clustering and reasoning-based judgments.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that CLAIM can learn stable and generalizable clarification strategies without relying on manually labeled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T04:27:45Z)
• Advantage-Guided Gate: Reshaping Open-Ended Reasoning for Vision-Based Spatial Intelligence [70.8951332710039]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have demonstrated significant potential in complex spatial scene understanding and reasoning tasks.<n>However, their open-ended reasoning process is prone to decision errors and error accumulation, leading to instability in answer quality.<n>We propose an advantage-guided gating framework that dynamically intervenes in and corrects deviations during the reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T07:46:04Z)
• Adaptive Arena-based Contestable Argumentative Network-of-Experts for Open-Ended Care Plan Coordination [1.4988096015658898]
  We present CANOE (Contestable Argumentative Network-of-Experts), a multi-agent neuro-symbolic framework.<n>It addresses limitations through five modules: complexity assessment, adaptive team recruitment, role-based argumentative computation, and care-plan synthesis.<n>CanOE's argumentative structure provides faithful explanation and human contestability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-05T20:18:45Z)
• 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)
• ARGORA: Orchestrated Argumentation for Causally Grounded LLM Reasoning and Decision Making [11.531465685641086]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T10:48:04Z)
• Advancing Adaptive Multi-Stage Video Anomaly Reasoning: A Benchmark Dataset and Method [96.63801368613177]
  We present a new task that elevates video anomaly analysis from descriptive understanding to structured, multi-stage reasoning.<n>We present a new dataset with 8,641 videos, totaling more than 50,000 samples, making it one of the largest datasets for video anomaly understanding.<n>Building upon the proposed task and dataset, we develop an end-to-end MLLM-based VAR model termed Vad-R1-Plus, which supports adaptive hierarchical reasoning and risk-aware decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-15T08:09:04Z)
• Implicit Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Survey [67.53966514728383]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong generalization across a wide range of tasks.<n>Recent studies have shifted attention from explicit chain-of-thought prompting toward implicit reasoning.<n>This survey introduces a taxonomy centered on execution paradigms, shifting the focus from representational forms to computational strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-02T14:16:02Z)
• 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)
• PixelThink: Towards Efficient Chain-of-Pixel Reasoning [70.32510083790069]
  PixelThink is a simple yet effective scheme that integrates externally estimated task difficulty and internally measured model uncertainty.<n>It learns to compress reasoning length in accordance with scene complexity and predictive confidence.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed approach improves both reasoning efficiency and overall segmentation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T17:55:49Z)
• 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)
• Argumentative Large Language Models for Explainable and Contestable Claim Verification [13.045050015831903]
  We introduce ArgLLMs, a method for augmenting large language models with argumentative reasoning.<n>ArgLLMs construct argumentation frameworks, which then serve as the basis for formal reasoning in support of decision-making.<n>We evaluate ArgLLMs' performance experimentally in comparison with state-of-the-art techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-03T13:12:28Z)
• 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)
• A Semantic Approach to Decidability in Epistemic Planning (Extended Version) [72.77805489645604]
  We use a novel semantic approach to achieve decidability. Specifically, we augment the logic of knowledge S5$_n$ and with an interaction axiom called (knowledge) commutativity. We prove that our framework admits a finitary non-fixpoint characterization of common knowledge, which is of independent interest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-28T11:26:26Z)

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.