ArgLLM-App: An Interactive System for Argumentative Reasoning with Large Language Models

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.

Argumentation skills are an essential toolkit for large language models (LLMs). These skills are crucial in various use cases, including self-reflection, debating collaboratively for diverse answers, and countering hate speech. In this paper, we create the first benchmark for a standardized evaluation of LLM-based approaches to computational argumentation, encompassing 33 datasets from previous work in unified form. Using the benchmark, we evaluate the generalizability of five LLM families across 46 computational argumentation tasks that cover mining arguments, assessing perspectives, assessing argument quality, reasoning about arguments, and generating arguments. On the benchmark, we conduct an extensive systematic analysis of the contribution of few-shot examples, reasoning steps, model size, and training skills to the performance of LLMs on the computational argumentation tasks in the benchmark.

Computational argumentation offers formal frameworks for transparent, verifiable reasoning but has traditionally been limited by its reliance on domain-specific information and extensive feature engineering. In contrast, LLMs excel at processing unstructured text, yet their opaque nature makes their reasoning difficult to evaluate and trust. We argue that the convergence of these fields will lay the foundation for a new paradigm: Argumentative Human-AI Decision-Making. We analyze how the synergy of argumentation framework mining, argumentation framework synthesis, and argumentative reasoning enables agents that do not just justify decisions, but engage in dialectical processes where decisions are contestable and revisable -- reasoning with humans rather than for them. This convergence of computational argumentation and LLMs is essential for human-aware, trustworthy AI in high-stakes domains.