Neurosymbolic Learning for Inference-Time Argumentation

Natural language arguments are compelling before they are formally explicit. A premise supports a claim through defeasible warrants, background commitments, and exception conditions that the text leaves implicit. However, formal verification requires the opposite. Making such arguments machine-checkable requires constructing the missing commitments, not only translating given sentences into logic. Construction, however, carries a risk that translation does not: a system free to add premises can make any claim provable, and a formally valid proof may assert the claim outright, prove it without the original premise, or establish more than the claim itself. We address this problem by formulating autoformalization for argumentative material inference as guard completion, in which non-monotonic material support is turned into monotonic formal inference relative to an explicitly constructed guard set. A completion is accepted only when its proof both passes the theorem prover and survives contrastive tests of premise dependence and claim selectivity. We implement this formulation in GUARD, a neuro-symbolic framework in which LLMs construct and formalize candidate guards, Isabelle/HOL verifies the resulting theories and returns step-level feedback for iterative refinement, and the system abstains when no faithful completion can be reached. Our empirical results on Debatepedia and ARCT using different LLMs demonstrate that GUARD yields significant improvements in verified-faithful (+35.3, +32.9 points) and substantial reductions in leakage (-25.9, -21.9 points) over the state-of-the-art LLM-driven theorem proving approach. Moreover, we show that the symbolic soft critique and the explicit assumption layer account for most of these gains, with the soft critique also improving the initial validity of the elicited context and reducing the number of iterations required for successful verification.

We present a novel approach for claim verification from tabular data documents. Recent LLM-based approaches either employ complex pretraining/fine-tuning or decompose verification into subtasks, often lacking comprehensive explanations and generalizability. To address these limitations, we propose a Multi-Agentic framework for Claim verification (MACE) consisting of three specialized agents: Planner, Executor, and Verifier. Instead of elaborate finetuning, each agent employs a zero-shot Chain-of-Thought setup to perform its tasks. MACE produces interpretable verification traces, with the Planner generating explicit reasoning strategies, the Executor providing detailed computation steps, and the Verifier validating the logic. Experiments demonstrate that MACE achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on two datasets and performs on par with the best models on two others, while achieving 80--100% of best performance with substantially smaller models: 27--92B parameters versus 235B. This combination of competitive performance, memory efficiency, and transparent reasoning highlights our framework's effectiveness.

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.