Argumentative Human-AI Decision-Making: Toward AI Agents That Reason With Us, Not For Us

Argumentative LLMs (ArgLLMs) are an existing approach leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) and computational argumentation for decision-making, with the aim of making the resulting decisions faithfully explainable to and contestable by humans. Here we propose a web-based system implementing ArgLLM-empowered agents for binary tasks. ArgLLM-App supports visualisation of the produced explanations and interaction with human users, allowing them to identify and contest any mistakes in the system's reasoning. It is highly modular and enables drawing information from trusted external sources. ArgLLM-App is publicly available at https://argllm.app, with a video demonstration at https://youtu.be/vzwlGOr0sPM.

Debates amongst agents driven by large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated vast potential in various applications, but when these interactions include humans and take place in high-stakes environments, e.g., in public policy deliberations, they are beset with issues such as sycophancy and a lack of faithful explanations. To tackle these issues, we present OmouAI, an interactive and inclusive deliberation system that uses LLMs in combination with computational argumentation, a field which excels in representing and reasoning within debates. OmouAI allows a human user to deliberate policy claims for real-world challenges with simulated personas, e.g., representing stakeholders, domain experts or devil's advocates, towards reducing sycophancy. Each persona generates its own arguments, and the arguments of all parties form a shared argumentation framework. Users can then contest, add and revise arguments, providing crucial human oversight. Then, arguments are evaluated using deterministic argumentative semantics against external goals, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals, guaranteeing faithful explanations. The advancement or worsening of the goals thus serve as indicators for the policy recommendations.

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.