Neurosymbolic Learning for Inference-Time Argumentation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.20098v1
• Date: Tue, 19 May 2026 16:49:29 GMT
• Title: Neurosymbolic Learning for Inference-Time Argumentation
• Abstract summary: Claim verification is an important problem in high-stakes settings, including health and finance.<n>We introduce inference-time argumentation (ITA), a trainable neurosymbolic framework for ternary claim verification.
• Score: 18.461907013598424
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Claim verification is an important problem in high-stakes settings, including health and finance. When information underpinning claims is incomplete or conflicting, uncertain answers may be more appropriate than binary true or false classifications. In all cases, faithful explanations of the considerations determining the final verdict are crucial. We introduce inference-time argumentation (ITA), a trainable neurosymbolic framework for ternary claim verification in which a formal argumentation semantics giving the strength of claims is used both (i) to guide LLM training as models learn to generate arguments and assign them base scores (representing intrinsic strengths) and (ii) to compute ternary (true/false/uncertain) predictions from generated, scored arguments. As a result, at training time, argument generation and scoring can be optimised according to the quality of the induced argumentative predictions. Moreover, at inference time, the final prediction is faithful, by construction, to the arguments and scores determining the verdict, rather than being justified by a potentially unfaithful post-hoc reasoning trace as in conventional reasoning models. We finally show that, on two datasets for ternary claim verification, ITA improves upon argumentative baselines and can perform competitively against non-argumentative direct-prediction baselines, while providing verdicts that are computed deterministically from explicit, inspectable argumentative structures.

Related papers

• Autoformalizing Argumentative Material Inferences [26.35292656634472]
  We develop an autoformalization for argumentative material inference as guard completion.<n>GUARD yields significant improvements in verified-faithful.<n>We show that the symbolic soft critique and the explicit assumption layer account for most of these gains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T11:05:26Z)
• 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)
• CausalFlip: A Benchmark for LLM Causal Judgment Beyond Semantic Matching [50.65932158912512]
  We propose a new causal reasoning benchmark, CausalFlip, to encourage the development of new large language models.<n>CaulFlip consists of causal judgment questions built over event triples that could form different confounder, chain, and collider relations.<n>We evaluate LLMs under multiple training paradigms, including answer-only training, explicit Chain-of-Thought supervision, and a proposed internalized causal reasoning approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T18:06:15Z)
• 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)
• CLATTER: Comprehensive Entailment Reasoning for Hallucination Detection [60.98964268961243]
  We propose that guiding models to perform a systematic and comprehensive reasoning process allows models to execute much finer-grained and accurate entailment decisions.<n>We define a 3-step reasoning process, consisting of (i) claim decomposition, (ii) sub-claim attribution and entailment classification, and (iii) aggregated classification, showing that such guided reasoning indeed yields improved hallucination detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T17:02:52Z)
• CRAVE: A Conflicting Reasoning Approach for Explainable Claim Verification Using LLMs [15.170312674645535]
  CRAVE is a Conflicting Reasoning Approach for explainable claim VErification.<n>It can verify complex claims based on the conflicting rationales reasoned by large language models.<n>CRAVE achieves much better performance than state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T07:20:31Z)
• FactReasoner: A Probabilistic Approach to Long-Form Factuality Assessment for Large Language Models [59.171510592986735]
  We propose FactReasoner, a new factuality assessor that relies on probabilistic reasoning to assess the factuality of a long-form generated response.<n>Our experiments on labeled and unlabeled benchmark datasets demonstrate clearly that FactReasoner improves considerably over state-of-the-art prompt-based approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T19:01:48Z)
• CASA: Causality-driven Argument Sufficiency Assessment [79.13496878681309]
  We propose CASA, a zero-shot causality-driven argument sufficiency assessment framework. PS measures how likely introducing the premise event would lead to the conclusion when both the premise and conclusion events are absent. Experiments on two logical fallacy detection datasets demonstrate that CASA accurately identifies insufficient arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-10T16:21:18Z)
• Advancing Counterfactual Inference through Nonlinear Quantile Regression [77.28323341329461]
  We propose a framework for efficient and effective counterfactual inference implemented with neural networks. The proposed approach enhances the capacity to generalize estimated counterfactual outcomes to unseen data. Empirical results conducted on multiple datasets offer compelling support for our theoretical assertions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-09T08:30:51Z)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)
• Same Side Stance Classification Task: Facilitating Argument Stance Classification by Fine-tuning a BERT Model [8.8896707993459]
  The same side stance classification task provides a dataset of argument pairs classified by whether or not both arguments share the same stance. We fine-tuned a pre-trained BERT model for three epochs and used the first 512 tokens of each argument to predict if two arguments share the same stance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-23T13:54:31Z)

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.