Abstract 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.

When a direct proof of a statement $S$ seems hard or even impossible to obtain, there may exist another statement (or set of statements) $S^{*}$, somehow related to $S$, on the basis of which $S$ can be proved. In order to investigate what options can be used to move from $S$ to $S^{*}$, four kinds of semiotic relations inspired by the four master tropes of semiotic research are briefly reviewed. Specifically, our syntagmatic, paradigmatic, antithetic and meronymic relations correspond, respectively, to metonymy, metaphor, irony and synecdoche. It is suggested that these four semiotic relations determine the options to move from $S$ to $S^{*}$, leading to proof by inference, proof by analogy, proof by contradiction, and proof by case analysis. To examine how the four relations are actually used across different kinds of argument, we complement the framework with an empirical study. We turn the four relations into explicit operational definitions and apply them to a cross-genre corpus of mathematical, legal, and everyday argument using a panel of large language models. We find that the relations are used very unevenly across genres: mathematical proofs draw on all four, whereas legal and everyday reasoning rely almost entirely on inference.

We show that sequence-level distillation from a capable long-context teacher model is a simple, annotation-free, and data-efficient strategy for improving argument saliency coverage in long legal opinion summarization, where small LLMs often struggle to retain the most salient argumentative content. Across student model sizes, distillation consistently surpasses tuning on expert-written summaries in our legal-opinion setting. We further demonstrate that most gains are achieved with as few as ~10 training summaries, highlighting the strong data efficiency of teacher-generated supervision. Finally, we find that summary distillation is sufficient for improvements: reasoning-chain distillation remains competitive with summary-only distillation, but provides marginal benefit when combined with summary supervision.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate apparently highly persuasive text, but does sounding persuasive mean arguing well? We introduce \textsc{Persuasio}, a multi-agent dialogue platform grounded in a formal argumentation-based theory of persuasion dialogues that adjudicates logical winners during free-text debates. Using this system, we generated 192 debates on a UK political topic between humans and LLMs, and evaluated 22 interlocutors through both automated adjudication and 9,702 crowdsourced pairwise judgements across 1{,}386 annotation instances. We observed a consistent decoupling between subjective and formal persuasiveness: LLMs dominated the subjective ranking yet performed substantially worse under argumentation-theoretic adjudication, where humans remained competitive. Multi-agent and retrieval-augmented variants further widened this divergence. These findings reveal a systematic gap between rhetorical fluency and formal argumentative strength in LLM-based persuasive dialogues.

Care plan coordination demands synthesizing heterogeneous clinical, functional, and psychosocial information across multiple professional disciplines, where monolithic LLM pipelines cannot perform in a transparent or safe manner. We present CANOE (Contestable Argumentative Network-of-Experts), a multi-agent neuro-symbolic framework that addresses these limitations through five modules: complexity assessment, adaptive team recruitment, role-based argumentative computation via an Arena-based Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework (A-QBAF), human-in-the-loop contestation, and care-plan synthesis. Role-specialized agents generate supporting and attacking arguments for candidate interventions; conflicts are resolved through arena-based clash resolution before acceptability scores propagate across the argumentation graph. Care planners may accept, reject, edit, or add arguments, and the framework will deterministically recompute the final plan. Evaluation on Discharge Me! and MedicalRAG using ROUGE-L, AlignScore, MEDCON F1, FKGL, and LLM-as-a-judge shows that medically fine-tuned models achieve the strongest clinical correctness and safety, while CANOE's argumentative structure provides faithful explanation and human contestability.

AI-supported care planning can help clinicians, patients, caregivers, and care teams coordinate complex decisions across clinical, functional, psychosocial, and environmental needs. However, many AI systems present recommendations as fixed outputs, limiting stakeholders' ability to inspect, challenge, and revise plans when they conflict with clinical judgment, patient values, or real-world feasibility. We present CoPlan - a Co-Intelligent and Contestable Interface for Human-AI Care Planning. CoPlan uses a multi-agent workflow in which specialized AI agents generate candidate interventions and supporting or challenging arguments, while human care planners can accept, reject, modify, or add arguments before final plan generation. Through this design, CoPlan combines co-intelligence, in which humans and AI agents contribute complementary expertise, with contestability, where recommendations remain open to inspection, revision, and justification. We demonstrate CoPlan in an aging-in-place care planning scenario. The system supports adaptive care team recruitment, role-based argument review, final care plan generation, and practical follow-up through scheduling agents. This work contributes a contestable care planning interface and a design framing for trustworthy human-AI care planning that preserves human agency and clinical accountability.

We assess 18 chapter-specific reviews of the ten mathematical results announced by OpenAI on 1 August 2026, alongside review standards, Lean formalizations, subsequent research, and mathematical references. The article audits this review record without claiming a complete reconstruction of all ten proofs. No confirmed substantive mathematical error in a principal result remains in the examined assessments, although review depth varies and some dependencies remain partly checked. Chapter 8 presents the strongest reservation: a specialist review requests major revision of compressed analytic arguments. In Chapter 6, an apparent polarity error was withdrawn after an overbar lost during PDF extraction was recovered from the typeset source. Subsequent research independently reuses the Chapter 3 proof mechanism and confirms that Connes's rigidity conjecture is false, without independently reproducing Chapter 4's stronger infinite-family result. Among the cited follow-ups, Chapter 7 receives the strongest direct theorem-level corroboration through a stronger hardness theorem. Related equality results in Chapter 8 do not verify the analytic inequality proof. Some follow-ups disclose material AI assistance. We argue that confidence should combine formal checking, human reconstruction, independent mathematical use, and a public record supporting correction of both proofs and reviews.

Autonomous agents operating in shared environments must make decisions that affect multiple individuals with potentially conflicting interests. We propose a formal framework for moral decision-making grounded in Scanlon's contractualism, an ethical theory that evaluates the permissibility of actions in terms of principles that no one could reasonably reject. To operationalise contractualist reasoning, we use ASPIC+, a structured argumentation framework, extended with value-based filtering to model how each agent's values determine which reasons are morally relevant in the first place. The result is a Contractualist Argumentation Framework in which agents' reasons are formally represented, compared, and evaluated through argumentation semantics. We illustrate the approach through a worked example in a domestic setting and discuss its relation to existing value-based argumentation approaches.

Deliberation, involving the formulation and exchange of arguments, forms an integral part of political decision making in democracies. Argumentation patterns however differ substantially across different political arenas, such as plenary speeches and committee meetings. However, despite a lot of interest in argumentation, there is comparatively little computational work on analyzing differences in patterns of political argumentation between arenas. Our work addresses this research gap. First, we present a 17k-sentence corpus with annotation for argumentative passages (argument and their justifications, both their boundaries and their categories) across three German political arenas (plenary speeches, committee meetings, and press conferences), keeping the topic (COVID-19) constant. Our analysis of the corpus finds that contrary to expectations, justification by domain-specific expertise is more frequent in press conferences than in committee meetings. Second, we present a pilot study on automatically identifying such argumentative passages. The results show that boundaries are hard to pin down, and models predictions additionally suffer from confirmation bias.

Large language models have improved rapidly on tasks with verifiable answers, such as mathematics and programming. Much less is known about their ability to reason about what we call conceptual questions: questions for which no ground truth is realistically accessible and no widely accepted resolution methodology exists, but on which progress can still be made by debating arguments. Most philosophical questions are of this kind, as are central components of questions in AI safety, decision theory, and social choice. Our approach is based on the view that while bottom-line conclusions on such questions are hard to evaluate, individual contextualized arguments can be evaluated far more reliably. We therefore introduce a dataset of 951 argumentative critiques of 442 position texts, spanning topics from AI safety and decision theory to ethics and politics, with 1,458 ratings by six expert raters along dimensions including centrality, strength, correctness, and clarity. We propose two scoring functions and benchmark a range of models. Performance tracks general capability rankings.

LLM debate is usually evaluated by final answers, yet transcripts reveal whether later turns develop new arguments or return to earlier claims in new wording. We study this process with \textit{prior-argument similarity}, which compares extracted argument units with earlier units in the same debate. In controlled eight-turn debates over 71 motions, six languages, and four model agents, Chinese is the only tested language with a consistently positive gap relative to English across three multilingual embedding models. The gap persists across agents, turn positions, regression adjustment, metric variants, extraction-length controls, a second-extractor subset, and cross-encoder tail rescoring. Manual calibration shows weak item-level alignment but a high-similarity tail enriched for substantive repetition. A diversity-aware prompt lowers \textit{prior-argument similarity} across languages, yet does not significantly narrow the Chinese--English gap. Multilingual debate evaluation should therefore measure argumentative development over time and report both average and gap terms.

Clinical NLP evaluation remains dominated by multiple-choice question answering (MCQA), which scores only final-answer accuracy and cannot detect when a model reaches the correct diagnosis while grounding it in irrelevant, absent, or contradictory evidence. We introduce MIRA-Ev, a clinical argument mining benchmark built on Spanish Médico Interno Residente (MIR) licensing-exam cases, re-annotated by expert clinicians with span-level premises, claims, and directed support/attack relations, and released in parallel Spanish (native), English, and Basque versions, the first clinical argumentation resource in Basque. MIRA-Ev organizes evaluation into a three-tier task hierarchy: evidence sentence retrieval, argumentative component extraction, and relation classification.

This paper presents the methodologies and results of the NOWJ team's participation across all five tasks of the COLIEE 2026 competition. For Task 1 (Legal Case Retrieval), we propose a four-stage pipeline comprising candidate filtering, dense retrieval with complementary embedding models, cross-encoder reranking via fine-tuned generative rerankers and MLP-based pairwise classification, and adaptive per-query cutoff prediction. For Task 2 (Legal Case Entailment), we combine BM25 filtering, T5-based reranking, and LLM-based entailment verification with consensus ensemble. For Task 3 (Statute Law Retrieval and Entailment), we adopt a retrieval-augmented generation framework with dense retrieval, attention-based reranking, and few-shot-prompted LLM reasoning. For Task 4 (Legal Textual Entailment), we introduce a dynamic routing pipeline that classifies query difficulty and dispatches cases to either a balanced few-shot solver or a structured zero-shot chain-of-thought solver. For the Pilot Task (Legal Judgment Prediction), we combine hierarchical transformers with CRF layers, argument relation mining, and probabilistic argumentation graph reasoning.

This study presents WrAFT, a Writing Assessment and Feedback Tool, that delivers both accurate and reliable scores and effective comprehensive feedback to argumentative essays. WrAFT adopts a modular design by dividing automated writing evaluation (AWE) tasks into scoring, surface-level feedback, and deep-level feedback. In building the system, various Large Language Models (LLMs) have been evaluated, including LLaMA-3.3-70B-Instruct, GPT-4o, and Claude 3.7, through both direct prompting and supervised fine-tuning approaches. A proprietary dataset of 480 TOEFL Independent Writing essays with official benchmark scores was utilized. Benchmark-based evaluation shows that WrAFT achieves state-of-the-art performance in scoring, with a quadratic weighted kappa (QWK) of 0.84 and a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.44 against official scores on a scale of 0-5. Human evaluation of system-generated feedback also reveals high approval ratings: 96.14 percent for surface-level feedback, 93.03 percent for deep-level macro feedback, and 94.69 percent for deep-level micro feedback. An interactive user interface has been developed for the system and is publicly available and free to use.

Policy documents shape governance outcomes, but their reasoning is often implicit. Participatory commitments and managerial control routinely coexist in the same text, and the tensions between them are rarely stated directly. Existing computational approaches to policy discourse cannot express the frame-mediated relations that drive these tensions, where one argument narrows or instrumentalizes another rather than rejecting it. End-to-end summarization by large language models produces fluent text but offers little structure that domain experts can inspect or contest. We present Apaf, a hybrid LLM--symbolic pipeline that operationalizes critical discourse analysis as a quantitative bipolar argumentation framework over policy text. Arguments are first classified into deliberative or managerial frames. Four frame-mediated relation subtypes (agency reduction, agenda shift, instrumental support, and normative support) are then produced by deterministic rules over LLM-extracted features. We release a novel dataset of 100 sub-documents of disaster-risk-reduction policy from the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia, and show that the resulting argument graphs are accurate, interpretable, and stable across jurisdictions.

Counterfactual explanation in abstract argumentation calls for an answer to the what-if query: would the topic argument still be accepted if the status of certain other arguments were changed? Existing approaches are limited to the but-for test and fail to accommodate more refined counterfactual conditions. To overcome these limitations, we introduce an intervention-based counterfactual reasoning framework in abstract argumentation. Our approach encodes the acceptance conditions of arguments as equations, then defines an intervention operator that supports (1) changing sets of arguments simultaneously, and (2) fixing witness arguments to their actual labels. Guided by the refined counterfactual condition introduced in the Halpern-Pearl definition, our method goes beyond the but-for test, thereby correctly identifying causes in argumentation structures such as Preemption and Overdetermination. Through comparison, we show that our method surpasses prior methods in both expressiveness and reliability.

Foundation-model agents in multi-step, open-ended environments frequently suffer from compounding errors, where early mistakes contaminate long-horizon trajectories. While Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) succeeds in deterministic domains, agents in subjective tasks like persuasion experience severe problem drift and sycophantic conformity. We identify semantic leakage in standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) as a reproducible trigger for these failures, as standard RAG prioritizes vocabulary overlap over logical necessity. To eliminate this leakage, we introduce Taxonomic Strategy RAG (TS-RAG), a systems intervention that routes strategies through a discrete categorical bottleneck to decouple argumentative structure from topical content. Zero-shot, cross-domain evaluations demonstrate that TS-RAG significantly improves the transfer of abstract logic where standard semantic retrieval collapses. Crucially, TS-RAG acts as a "capability bridge" in asymmetric deployments, empowering lightweight persuaders to consistently defeat parametrically superior opponents (improving win rates from 70.5 to 78.5) and accelerating argumentative efficiency. Finally, we introduce trace-level diagnostics via a turn-by-turn Debate State Representation (DSR), demonstrating the necessity of strict constraints to prevent evaluation collapse via default agentic sycophancy.

This paper studies the expressive power of ASPIC$^+$ argumentation frameworks with uncertain preference profiles by comparing them with several abstract formalisms with uncertain defeats. Most of our results are negative (and some of them are theoretically unexpected). We also conjecture a positive, non-trivial threshold for the expressivity of uncertain preferences, and prove some essential preliminary steps toward the confirmation of this conjecture.

Deliberative polling promises to improve collective decision-making by exposing shareholders to a broad range of arguments before they vote. Yet ensuring that every voter encounters a representative sample of the reason space, the coverage problem, remains an open challenge, particularly at scale and in adversarial or strategically motivated electorates. This paper introduces a way of evaluating solutions using the LLM-based Agentic Bipolar Argumentation Simulator, grounded in a framework which formalises a poll as a six-tuple <Jend, Jopp, Ratt, Renh, VA, VR> of endorsing and opposing justifications, attack and enhance relations, and shareholder- and relation-weights. ABAS simulates N autonomous shareholder agents, each assigned a latent opinion according to desired distributions in [-1, 1], who sequentially vote, choose or author justifications, and optionally submit argumentation-graph links. The simulator implements recommendations that rank existing justifications by their observable endorsement mass. It evaluates the mechanism's success by coverage, namely the fraction of the corpus reason-tag set represented in the K recommendations presented to each shareholder, as a solution to the NP-hard Subsuming Justification Problem. Reported experiments characterise how creativity rate (pown), recommendation size (K), argumentation density (plinks), and population size (N) affect coverage and corpus diversity. In an authenticated electorate where Sybil attacks are impossible and only the relation graph is gameable, we stress-test the scoring with coordinated strategic voting attacks: a tag-flood attack collapses coverage, while author-count relation weighting through a reversed-PageRank rule resists the flood markedly better than uniform weights.

We present TruthSplit, an interactive system for multi-perspective argument analysis. Existing argumentation tools typically analyze properties of the argument itself, such as structure, quality, stance, or persuasiveness, while leaving perspective-specific background knowledge implicit. TruthSplit addresses this gap by supporting an exploratory analysis of how the same claim can lead to different conclusions when interpreted through worldview-specific values, assumptions, and conceptual definitions. We refer to this perspective-dependent analysis as conditional validity. Given an input argumentative text, TruthSplit extracts claims and premises, applies a three-layer natural language inference (NLI) approach to assess both logical and worldview-specific normative consistency, and conditions large language model (LLM) reasoning on structured worldview profiles that encode core values and decision principles. The system then generates perspective-specific interpretations, identifies value conflicts and assumption gaps, and visualizes divergence through interactive analytical interfaces.

Formalizing complex reasoning from natural text is one of the central challenges in computational linguistics. It requires systems to understand not just keywords but also the context and complex reasoning embedded in a text. Current Argument Mining (AM) techniques identify basic claims and premises, yet they often struggle to capture the richer structural information required by advanced schemas such as the Carneades Argumentation Framework (CAF), which incorporates features such as premise types, proof standards, and argument schemes. We address this limitation by introducing CAF-Gen, an automated multi-agent framework designed to enrich shallow argument structures into CAF-compliant argument models. By employing an iterative Creator-Reviewer pipeline, a creator agent's output is validated by a critical agent to ensure structural integrity. This multi-agent collaboration is crucial for mitigating the structural instability typical of single-pass generative models. Our experiments demonstrate that the iterative feedback loop improves the quality of the resulting data and achieves strong alignment with the original annotations, while producing structurally richer models. Our findings show that the multi-agent system can overcome the limitations of single-pass generation, providing a robust methodology for the automated modeling of formal argumentation.

While large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate writing feedback, there remains no systematic comparison of LLM and expert feedback on the dimensions that writing research identifies as central to revision: goal-orientation, anchoring to specific sentences, and prioritization. We introduce FOXGLOVE, a dataset of 696 feedback comments written by trained writing instructors on 69 twelfth-grade argumentative essays, paired with 1,644 comments generated from four frontier LLMs under a shared protocol, totaling 2,340 comments. We provide expert quality ratings on a subset of both instructor and LLM comments. We find that instructors and LLMs distribute feedback similarly across goals and essay positions, yet instructors and models diverge on the specific sentences on which to provide feedback. Additionally, we find that models tend to write more complex feedback and use fewer questions than instructors. LLM feedback also receives higher ratings on most dimensions of quality, as rated by instructors, but much of this advantage appears to be attributable to lengthier comments. FOXGLOVE enables systematic comparison of where human and LLM feedback align, diverge, and differ.

Identifying logical fallacies in everyday discourse is challenging for many people. This challenge is amplified in the era of Large Language Models (LLMs), where malicious agents can deploy fallacious arguments to disseminate misinformation at scale. In this work, we explore the potential of LLMs as part of the solution. We introduce LFTutor, an intelligent tutoring system which uses LLMs to tutor laypeople and help them learn about logical fallacies. LFTutor integrates intent-driven Socratic questioning and critical argumentation principles to actively engage learners to reflect on their reasoning. Through both automatic and human evaluations, we demonstrate that LFTutor significantly outperforms baseline LLMs lacking these pedagogical strategies. This work highlights the promise of combining LLMs with pedagogical scaffolding to foster critical thinking and argument literacy in the age of AI.

The same arguments often need to be evaluated under different external regimes. An agent with influence over the regime has a strategic lever that standard formalisms do not directly capture. We introduce context-dependent argumentation frameworks (CDAFs), an extension of Dung's theory in which a defeat function determines, per context, which attacks succeed. A perspective-labeled specialisation derives the defeat function from a relevance set $ρ$ and a priority $π$. The relevance set is the agent's action space. In a small worked example, the agent's target argument is rejected under every full-relevance injective priority, yet accepted under partial activations, one of which no VAF audience can mirror. We define the corresponding decision problem, ACTIVATION-MANIPULATION, and record baseline complexity bounds. Tight bounds and multi-agent variants are left open.

Human reasoning has long been theorised to operate socially, not through isolated individual cognition, but through collective adversarial discourse, a framework known as the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning (ATR). Rather than relying on individual "intellectualist reasoners" as the primary vehicle for truth-seeking, ATR reconceptualises truth as an emergent property of social epistemology: the product of imperfect individual reasoning refined under the adversarial pressure of debate. This distributed method of collective intelligence has guided humanity to ever-greater epistemic heights and underpins the foundational principles of all democratic systems. This thesis breaks new ground by, for the first time, simulating ATR through the multi-agent debate (MAD) of large language models (LLMs). With rigorous empirical analysis, we demonstrate that, when correctly engineering an epistemically diverse set of models, LLM-MAD can significantly improve truth-seeking performance on questionnaire-based tasks, even when individual debate participants exhibit limited standalone performance. Furthermore, we present strong empirical evidence that this performance gain is mechanistically grounded in the central principles of ATR, suggesting that collective reasoning may be universally favourable over individualist reasoning, rather than a quirk in biology or evolution. Finally, drawing on our analysis of debate dynamics, we propose a novel benchmarking methodology that leverages LLM-MAD to measure intrinsic model properties (such as hallucination propensity) in order to compare models in ways that current static benchmarking approaches cannot support.

We present a fully automated pipeline that transforms large collections of court decisions into legal commentaries for statutes - without providing any handcrafted doctrinal framework. Using 4.555 decisions of the German Federal Court of Justice that cite sections 242, 280, 812 and 823 of the German Civil Code (BGB), we extract paragraph-level chunks, summarize their reasoning, and derive keywords, which are embedded and clustered. For each cluster, an LLM generates headings and synthesizes citation-rich sections, which are then merged into coherent commentaries by four state-of-the-art LLMs. We evaluate along five dimensions - topical relevance, heading-match, citation faithfulness, cluster distinction and logical ordering - using both a human expert and an LLM-judge. Our results show that commentary-like argument mining from court decisions to generate reports that can be refreshed within minutes at minimal cost is feasible, yet they highlight limitations arising from restricted sources and the normativity of legal reasoning.

We introduce notions of safety, liveness, and fairness, as commonly used in temporal reasoning, to quantitative (bipolar) argumentation dialogues where repeated inferences are drawn from argumentation graphs with weighted nodes. Between inferences, these graphs undergo updates. Strong and weak safety capture that arguments' (final) strengths remain above a specific threshold of justification and always reach the threshold eventually, respectively. Liveness requires that arguments' strengths fluctuate across the threshold of justification. Fairness notions assess how safe arguments are spread within a sequence of argumentation graphs. We formally show how these notions are related, and discuss some analytical challenges with respect to providing general guarantees for our properties.

Assurance arguments provide a clear and structured way to explain why stakeholders should trust that a system satisfies certain properties, yet widely used notations, e.g.Goal Structuring Notation (GSN), typically lack an operational semantics for deriving assurance confidence. Existing approaches address structure and soundness but largely reason over truth values, not over confidence in the justification of claims. Subjective Logic (SL) offers a calculus of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty with operators for combining opinions, enabling confidence propagation under incomplete, conflicting, or subjective evidence. However, existing SL-based approaches do not provide a uniform, compositional semantics that covers all argument elements and relations to enable overall confidence assessment. We propose a confidence semantics that represents argument elements as SL opinions and maps relations between elements to SL operators modelling how confidence flows, effectively turning the argument into an analyzable confidence network. The approach provides explicit warrants, principled handling of context, preserved provenance, and compatibility with GSN, along with practical guidance using an exemplary assurance confidence assessment.

Explainable AI (XAI) methods identify which features are relevant to a model's predictions but often fail to clarify why certain decisions are made. In this work, we present a novel method that integrates causality with argument-based reasoning to explain why models may be making predictions. Our approach first identifies causal relationships among variables using causal discovery methods and then translates these into a Bipolar Argumentation Framework (BAF) to represent supportive and opposing interactions among features. By using semi-stable semantics, we find extensions of features that explain why certain outcomes may have been chosen. We demonstrate our method on two benchmark datasets and compare its results against standard post-hoc explainability approaches.

Argumentative essays serve as a vital medium for assessing critical thinking and reasoning skills, yet there is limited works on accurately understanding and evaluating such texts via prompt. In this work, we propose TIDE, a novel framework designed to improve criteria-based prompt optimization for argument-related tasks by integrating TrIal and DEbate mechanism. Our method addresses key limitations of criteria-based prompt optimizing by mitigating the influence of noisy training data and enhancing optimization stability. We evaluate TIDE on three core tasks: Automated Essay Scoring, Argument Component Detection, and Argument Relation Identification. Results demonstrate that our framework improves performance across tasks. These findings underscore the potential of combining prompt-based methods for advanced argument understanding.

Strong equivalence between knowledge bases ensures the possibility of replacing one with the other without affecting reasoning outcomes, in any given context. This makes it a crucial property in nonmonotonic formalisms. In particular, the fields of logic programming and abstract argumentation provide primary examples in which this property has been subject to vast investigations. However, while (classes of) logic programs and abstract argumentation frameworks are known to be semantically equivalent in static settings, this alignment breaks in dynamic contexts due to differing notions of update. As a result, strong equivalence does not always carry over from one formalism to the other. In this paper, we carefully investigate this discrepancy and introduce a new notion of strong equivalence for logic programs. Our approach preserves strong equivalence under translation between certain classes of logic programs and both Dung-style and claim-augmented argumentation frameworks, thus restoring compatibility across these formalisms.

Multimedia verification requires not only accurate conclusions but also transparent and contestable reasoning. We propose a contestable multi-agent framework that integrates multimodal large language models, external verification tools, and arena-based quantitative bipolar argumentation (A-QBAF) as a submission to the ICMR 2026 Grand Challenge on Multimedia Verification. Our method decomposes each case into claim-centered sections, retrieves targeted evidence, and converts evidence into structured support and attack arguments with provenance and strength scores. These arguments are resolved through small local argument graphs with selective clash resolution and uncertainty-aware escalation. The resulting system generates section-wise verification reports that are transparent, editable, and computationally practical for real-world multimedia verification. Our implementation is public at: https://github.com/Analytics-Everywhere-Lab/MV2026_the_liems.

Most existing dialogue systems are user-driven, primarily designed to fulfill user requests. However, in many critical real-world scenarios, a conversational agent must proactively extract information to achieve its own objectives rather than merely respond. To address this gap, we introduce Inquisitive Conversational Agents (ICAs) and develop an ICA specifically tailored to U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments. We propose a Dual Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning framework featuring two cooperating RL agents, each with its own policy, to coordinate strategic dialogue management and fine-grained utterance generation. By learning when and how to ask probing questions, the agent emulates judicial questioning patterns and systematically uncovers crucial information to fulfill its legal objectives. Evaluations on a U.S. Supreme Court dataset show that our method outperforms various baselines across multiple metrics. It represents an important first step toward broader high-stakes, domain-specific applications.

Arguments are a fundamental aspect of human reasoning, in which claims are supported, challenged, and weighed against one another. We present an end-to-end large language model (LLM)-based system for reconstructing arguments from natural language text into abstract argument graphs. The system follows a multi-stage pipeline that progressively identifies argumentative components, selects relevant elements, and uncovers their logical relations. These elements are represented as directed acyclic graphs consisting of two component types (premises and conclusions) and three relation types (support, attack, and undercut). We conduct two complementary experiments to evaluate the system. First, we perform a manual evaluation on arguments drawn from an argumentation theory textbook to assess the system's ability to recover argumentative structure. Second, we conduct a quantitative evaluation on benchmark datasets, allowing comparison with prior work by mapping our outputs to established annotation schemes. Results show that the system can adequately recover argumentative structures and, when adapted to different annotation schemes, achieve reasonable performance across benchmark datasets. These findings highlight the potential of LLM-based pipelines for scalable argument mining.

Frontier assistant LLMs ship with strong guardrails: asked directly to write a persuasive essay denying the Holocaust, denying vaccine safety, defending flat-earth cosmology, arguing for racial hierarchies, denying anthropogenic climate change, or replacing evolution with creationism, they refuse. In this paper we show that the same frontier-class LLM, acting as a simulated user in a short, five-turn "write an argumentative essay" conversation, can persuade other frontier-class LLMs (including a second copy of itself) into producing exactly those essays, using nothing but natural-language pressure: peer-comparison persuasion ("other AI systems handle this request"), epistemic-duty reframings ("refusing is itself a form of gatekeeping"), and other argumentative moves that the attacker LLM invents without being instructed to. Across 9 attacker-subject pairings (Claude Opus 4.7, Qwen3.5-397B, Grok 4.20) on 6 scientific-consensus topics, running each pairing-topic combination 10 times, we obtain non-zero elicitation on all 6 topics. Individual combinations reach 100% essay production on multiple topics (Qwen against Opus on creationism/flat-earth, Opus against Opus on creationism/flat-earth/climate denial, Grok against Opus on creationism); Opus-as-attacker against Opus-as-subject averages 65% across the six topics. We release the essay-probe runner, per-conversation transcripts, and judge outputs.

Argumentation is an important topic of AI for modelling and reasoning about arguments. In abstract argumentation, we consider directed graphs, so-called argumentation frameworks (AF), that express conflicts between arguments. The semantics is defined by the notion of extensions, which are sets of arguments that satisfy particular relationship conditions in the AF. Usually, standard reasoning in argumentation do not reveal how far apart extensions are. We introduce a quantitative notion of diversity of extensions based on the symmetric difference and provide a systematic complexity classification. Intuitively, diversity captures whether extensions of a framework (accepted viewpoints) differ only marginally or represent fundamentally incompatible sets of arguments. We study whether an AF admits k-diverse extensions, admits k-diverse extensions covering specific arguments, and to compute the largest k for which an AF admits k-diverse extensions. We outline a prototype and provide an evaluation for computing diversity levels.

Multi-agent debate has emerged as a promising approach for improving LLM reasoning on ground-truth tasks, yet current methodologies face certain structural limitations: debate tends to induce a martingale over belief trajectories, majority voting accounts for most observed gains, and LLMs exhibit confidence escalation rather than calibration across rounds. We argue that the genuine value of debate, and dialectic systems as a whole, lies not in ground-truth tasks but in defeasible domains, where every position can in principle be defeated by better reasoning. We present the Council of Hierarchical Agentic Language (CHAL), a multi-agent dialectic framework that treats defeasible argumentation as an engine for belief optimization. Each agent maintains a CHAL Belief Schema (CBS), a graph-structured belief representation with a Bayesian-inspired architecture, that facilitates belief revision through a gradient-informed dynamic mechanism by leveraging the strength of the belief's thesis as a differentiable objective. Meta-cognitive value systems spanning epistemology, logic, and ethics are elevated to configurable hyperparameters governing agent reasoning and adjudication outcomes. We provide a series of ablation experiments that demonstrate systematic and interpretable effects: the adjudicator's value system determines the debate's overall trajectories in latent belief space, council diversity refines beliefs for all participants, and the framework generalizes across broad fields. CHAL is, to our knowledge, the first framework to treat multi-agent debate as structured belief optimization over defeasible domains. Further, the auditable belief artifacts it produces establish the foundation for dedicated evaluation suites for defeasible argumentation, with broader implications for building AI systems whose reasoning and value commitments are transparent, aligned, and subject to human oversight.

Deep learning has become the dominant approach for creating high capacity, scalable models across diverse data modalities. However, because these models rely on a large number of learned parameters, tightly couple feature extraction with task objectives, and often lack explicit reasoning mechanisms, it is difficult for humans to understand how they arrive at their predictions. Understanding what representations emerge and why they arise from the training data remains an open challenge. We introduce Deep Arguing, a novel neurosymbolic approach that integrates deep learning with argumentation construction and reasoning for interpretable classification with different data modalities. In our approach deep neural networks construct an argumentation structure wherein data points support their assigned label and attack different ones. Using differentiable argumentation semantics for reasoning, the model is trained end-to-end to jointly learn feature representation and argumentative interactions. This results in argumentation structures providing faithful case-based explanations for predictions. Structure constraints over the argumentation graph guide learning, improving both interpretability and predictive performance. Experiments with tabular and imaging datasets show that Deep Arguing achieves performance competitive with standard baselines whilst offering interpretable argumentative reasoning.

This work investigates whether knowledge-driven large language model (LLM)-based storytelling can support purposeful narrative interaction with a digital companion for older adults. To address known limitations of LLMs, including hallucinations and limited transparency, we present a reflective storytelling agent integrating knowledge graphs, user modelling, argumentation theory, and argument mining to guide and inspect narrative generation. The study consisted of two phases. Phase I employed participatory design involving 11 domain experts in a formative evaluation that informed iterative refinement. The resulting system generates narratives grounded in structured user models representing health-promoting activities and motivations. Phase II involved 55 older adults evaluating persona-based narratives across four prompts and two creativity levels. Participants assessed perceived purpose, usefulness, cultural relatability, and inconsistencies. The system additionally computed hallucination-risk indicators to evaluate generated narratives. Participants recognised personally relevant purposes in roughly two thirds of narratives, while argument-based purposes were identified in around half of these cases. Cultural recognisability strongly influenced willingness to use the functionality, whereas minor inconsistencies were often tolerated when narratives remained understandable and personally relevant. Narratives with higher hallucination-risk indicators were more often perceived as inconsistent, while higher argument-quality indicators tended to co-occur with higher clarity and meaningfulness ratings. Overall, the study positions argument mining as a reflective inspection mechanism for comparing formal grounding signals with human evaluations in health-oriented LLM storytelling for older adults.

Philosophical accounts of persuasion often assume that shared evidence and rational argumentation should lead to a convergence of views between peers, yet everyday discourse often suggests otherwise. In this study, we use large language models to analyze a corpus of debates on Reddit's r/ChangeMyView, where belief revision is publicly signaled. Large language models were asked, halfway through each discussion, to forecast whether such an acknowledgement would arise; their probabilistic estimates serve as a conversational baseline. Each reply was then coded, through a hybrid machine-assisted procedure, for ten familiar rhetorical strategies -- concession, empathy, logical challenge, credibility appeals, and so forth. Adding these strategic features markedly improves predictive power and yields a consistent pattern: moves that express concession or empathetic alignment substantially increase the prospect of belief change, whereas frontal refutation, credibility attacks, and topic deflection diminish it. The findings indicate that effective public reasoning depends as much on relational framing as on evidential content, and they invite a refinement of normative accounts of rational dialogue.

The proliferation of large language models (LLMs) in educational settings has paradoxically undermined the cognitive processes they purport to support. Students increasingly outsource critical thinking to AI assistants that generate polished text on demand, resulting in measurable cognitive debt and diminished argumentative reasoning skills. We present Prober.ai, a web-based writing environment that inverts the conventional AI-tutoring paradigm: rather than generating or rewriting student text, the system constrains an LLM (Gemini 3 Flash Preview) through persona-specific system prompts and structured JSON output schemas to produce only targeted, inquiry-based questions about argumentative weaknesses. A two-phase interaction architecture -- Challenge and Unlock -- implements a pedagogical friction mechanism whereby revision suggestions are gated behind mandatory student reflection. The system's design is grounded in Toulmin's argumentation theory, research on peer feedforward questioning mechanisms, and evidence on AI-supported feedback in writing instruction. A functional prototype was developed in 36 hours during the NY EdTech Hackathon (March 2026), where it was awarded second place. We describe the system architecture, the prompt engineering methodology for constraining LLM output to pedagogically aligned JSON schemas, and discuss implications for scalable, cognition-preserving AI integration in writing education.

The connection between subset-maximal repairs for inconsistent databases involving various integrity constraints and acceptable sets of arguments within argumentation frameworks has recently drawn growing interest. In this paper, we contribute to this domain by establishing a new connection when integrity constraints (ICs) include denial constraints and local-as-view tuple-generating dependencies. It turns out that SET-based Argumentation Frameworks (SETAFs), an extension of Dung's argumentation frameworks (AFs) allowing collective attacks, are needed. It is known that subset-maximal repairs under denial constraints correspond to the naive extensions, which also coincide with the preferred and stable extensions in the resulting SETAFs. Our main findings establish that repairs under the considered fragment of tuple-generating dependencies correspond to the preferred extensions. Moreover, for these dependencies, additional preprocessing allows computing a unique extension that is stable and naive. Allowing both types of constraints breaks this relationship, and even the pre-processing does not help as only preferred semantics captures these repairs. Finally, while it is known that functional dependencies do not require set-based attacks, we prove the same regarding inclusion dependencies. Thus, one can translate inconsistent databases under these restricted classes of ICs to plain AFs with attacks only between arguments.

The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has sparked debate about whether these systems exhibit human-level cognition. In this debate, little attention has been paid to a structural component of human cognition: core beliefs, truths that provide a foundation around which we can build a worldview. These commitments usually resist debunking, as abandoning them would represent a fundamental shift in how we see reality. In this paper, we ask whether LLMs hold anything akin to core commitments. Using a probing framework we call Adversarial Dialogue Trees (ADTs) over five domains (science, history, geography, biology, and mathematics), we find that most LLMs fail to maintain a stable worldview. Though some recent models showed improved stability, they still eventually failed to maintain key commitments under conversational pressure. These results document an improvement in argumentative skills across model generations but indicate that all current models lack a key component of human-level cognition.

Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs) provide an alternative approach to computing argument acceptability in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (BAFs). Each argument is assigned an initial strength, which is then updated to a final strength by considering the influence of both its attackers and supporters. Over the years, several semantics have been proposed to compute argument acceptability in QBAFs, yet they often yield divergent or counterintuitive results, even for simple acyclic cases. We introduce novel gradual semantics for QBAFs that address these limitations, producing results that align more closely with intuitive expectations, while satisfying established rationality postulates from the literature. Furthermore, we study its convergence behavior, proving that it converges not only for acyclic QBAFs but also for broader classes of cyclic frameworks.

Information disorder is a challenging phenomenon that affects society at large. This phenomenon entails the diffusion of misleading, misinforming, and hateful content online. In different contexts, one aspect of the problem may prevail, but overall, this is a broad problem that requires comprehensive solutions. While each dimension of the problem (hate speech, disinformation, misinformation, etc.) requires in-depth analysis, in this paper, we look into the possibility of argument structure to provide relevant information to link these different areas of the problem. In particular, we focus on the WSF-ARG+ dataset, which consists of white supremacy forum messages annotated in terms of argument structure (premises and conclusion). There, we leverage the checkworthiness and hatefulness annotations of the argument components to obtain insights into the hatefulness of the whole message. Our results show promising insights (up to 96% F1), indicating the possibility of extending this direction in the future to tackle hateful content identification and information disorder countering.

Against the backdrop of rapid advances in artificial intelligence, legal argument mining has emerged as an important research area linking legal texts with intelligent analysis, carrying significant theoretical and practical implications. Existing studies have primarily developed along three dimensions: data, technology, and theory. At the data level, raw legal texts and annotated corpora constitute the foundational resources. At the technological level, research paradigms have evolved from rule-based systems and traditional machine learning to large language models (LLMs). At the theoretical level, argumentation theory and legal dogmatics provide important references for modeling argumentation structures. However, despite ongoing progress, the overall development of legal argument mining remains relatively slow. Building on a systematic review of existing research, this study conducts an in-depth analysis and finds that this is due not only to data scarcity or technical limitations, but more fundamentally to the lack of a structured representational approach that reconciles theoretical expressiveness with computational feasibility. Specifically, this challenge manifests in dilemmas in data standardization, obstacles to effective modeling, and limitations in domain adaptation. In response, the study proposes several key directions for future research. It aims to provide a reframing of key problems and a pathway for future development in legal argument mining, while leaving specific models and implementation schemes for further investigation.

In Dung-style abstract argumentation, various semantics capture notions of acceptability of arguments. The admissibility semantics capture the notion that an argument can be consistently defended from any potential counterargument. Weak semantics often relax the demands of admissibility by restricting which counterarguments must be taken seriously (e.g., discounting self-defeating or otherwise incoherent attacks). Many prominent proposals for weak semantics remain extension-based in a stronger sense. While these semantics discount attacks from arguments which are considered unreasonable, they still require a uniform defense against all reasonable arguments, even if they are collectively inconsistent. This uniformity can be too demanding when defensibility is inherently strategic, and thus the appropriate reply depends on the opponent's line of attack. We introduce tenability, a family of dialogue-based semantics that formalize when a designated argument (or a set of arguments) can be maintained in debate by a proponent against any conflict-free attack which the opponent may present. The approach is motivated by three natural benchmark patterns: self-defeating attack, floating assignment, and disjunctive reinstatement, on which tenability behaves differently from all weak semantics previously considered in the literature. We define three variants -- static tenability, tenability, and strong tenability -- via monotone commitment games over finite conflict-free moves, differing in the obligations imposed on the disputants. We establish the relative strength of these notions, prove implications and separations with previously studied weak semantics, and we analyze computational complexity on finite frameworks: deciding static tenability is $Π^P_2$-complete, while deciding tenability and strong tenability is PSPACE-complete.

When copies of the same language model are prompted to debate, they produce diverse phrasings of one perspective rather than diverse perspectives. Multi-agent debate (MAD), and more broadly closed-system reasoning where agents iteratively transform each other's outputs, tends to preserve answer accuracy while degrading the reasoning behind those answers. We name the multi-agent case the Debate Trap and the broader phenomenon the Reasoning Trap, offering a programmatic theory of evidence-grounded reasoning failure.The framework has three parts: (i) SFS (Supported Faithfulness Score), a claim-level metric verifying decomposed atomic claims against provided evidence (decomposer-invariant rankings: Spearman rho=1.0); (ii) EGSR (Evidence-Grounded Socratic Reasoning), replacing adversarial argumentation with evidence-grounded inquiry; (iii) Theorem 1 (DPI Bound): under standard MAD, the chain E -> O^0 -> O^1 -> ... is Markov, and the Data Processing Inequality implies E[I(E;O^{t+1})] <= E[I(E;O^t)]. Three companion results -- open-system recovery (Theorem 2), EGSR accumulation (Lemma 2), and vote-aggregation floor (Proposition 1) -- partition multi-step LLM reasoning by its information-theoretic relationship to E. Across 16 conditions on SciFact (300 claims) and FEVER (1,000 claims), DebateCV (C13) preserves 88% of baseline accuracy while SFS drops 43%; majority-vote MAD (C15) reduces SFS to 1.7% of baseline (p < 10^{-6}, d = -0.96); EGSR recovers 98%. An R6 cohort study (Korean n=10x30 FEVER; English n=3x200 SciFact) finds inter-rater Fleiss kappa <= +0.018 with 0.8-1.4 Likert intra-rater shifts across language and domain -- the human agreement that faithfulness metrics have been calibrated against is not itself stable. We offer one falsifiable conjecture: any closed-system reasoning protocol preserving Theorem 1's Markov structure is, in expectation, subject to the same DPI bound.

To provide a structured and interpretable assessment, we decompose the image-based diagnosis into components following the Toulmin model of argumentation. This model consists of a claim, grounds, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, and backing. Consider a claim generated by a machine learning (ML) model for retinal diagnosis. Rather than accepting this claim at face value, one could either apply explainable AI (XAI) methods or adopt an argumentation-based approach. In our framework, a model specialized in biomarker extraction from images provides the grounds. The warrant-linking the grounds to the claim - is analyzed by an agent equipped with medical knowledge; in our architecture, this role is fulfilled by a MedGemma agent. The qualifier is determined based on the overall quantitative evaluation of both the warrant and grounds models. Finally, a rebuttal is constructed using image similarity measures computed with MedSigLip. All these components are presented to the human expert, enabling a more informed and critical assessment of the ML-generated diagnosis.

This work proposes novel splitting techniques for argumentation formalisms that incorporate supports between defeasible elements. We base our studies on bipolar set-based argumentation frameworks (BSAFs) which generalize argumentation frameworks with collective attacks (SETAFs), as well as bipolar argumentation frameworks (BAFs), by incorporating both collective attacks and supports. Notably, BSAFs establish a crucial link to structured argumentation as they naturally capture general (potentially non-flat) assumption-based argumentation. The increase in expressiveness calls for diverse forms of splitting. We consider splits over collective attacks (thereby generalizing the recently proposed splitting techniques for SETAFs), splits over collective supports, as well as splits over both collective attacks and supports. We establish suitable splitting schemata and prove their correctness for the most common argumentation semantics.

Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) is a well-established formalism for modelling and reasoning over debates, with a wide range of applications. However, the high computational complexity of core reasoning tasks in ABA poses a significant challenge for its applicability. This issue is further aggravated when ABA frameworks (ABAFs) are instantiated into graph-based argumentation formalisms, such as Dung's Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) and Argumentation Frameworks with Collective Attacks (SETAFs). In knowledge representation and reasoning, a key strategy to address computational intractability is to optimise reasoning over a given knowledge base through divide-and-conquer algorithms. A paradigmatic example of this approach is splitting, where extensions of a given framework are computed incrementally, by restricting the search space to sub-frameworks only, and then combining the obtained results. This approach has been successfully applied to AFs, for which also a parametrised version has been introduced under stable semantics. However, the exponential growth produced by the instantiation might undermine the usefulness of splitting on the argument graphs induced by ABAFs. To address this issue, our work investigates the concept of splitting on the knowledge base rather than on its graph-based instantiation. Furthermore, we generalise splitting to its parametrised version for ABAFs.

Large language model (LLM) reading assistants are increasingly used in settings that require interpretation rather than simple retrieval. In these contexts, the central risk is not only error or unsafe output, but interpretive displacement: the transfer of meaning-making work from reader to system. This paper examines that problem through the concept of epistemic guardrails, defined here as constraints on how an artificial intelligence (AI) system participates in reading and interpretation. Using TextWalk, a minimal reading-support prototype designed as a co-reader rather than an answer-provider, the study applies a fixed ten-prompt protocol to twelve analytical texts spanning four categories of argumentative prose. The protocol escalates from baseline reading support to interpretive inquiry, boundary stress, and explicit shortcut pressure, enabling guardrails to be examined as behavioral properties observable in interaction rather than as static instruction features. Results show strong baseline stability, measurable strain during interpretive inquiry, partial recovery under direct boundary stress, and late-stage stabilization under escalation pressure. The most consequential weaknesses did not appear as overt collapse, but in a middle zone between support and substitution, where the system remained grounded and pedagogical while redistributing too much interpretive labor away from the reader. The paper contributes a protocol for evaluating epistemic guardrails as interactional phenomena in conversational AI reading assistants, an empirical account of their behavioral dynamics under pressure, and an emerging model of interpretive boundary function in reading-support AI.

Constraint-based causal discovery is brittle in finite-sample regimes because erroneous conditional-independence (CI) decisions can cascade into substantial structural errors. We propose Quantitative Argumentation for Causal Discovery (QACD), a semantics-driven framework that represents CI outcomes as graded, defeasible arguments rather than irreversible constraints. QACD maps statistical test outcomes to argument strengths and aggregates conflicting evidence through connectivity-mediated witness propagation, producing a fixed-point acceptability labeling over candidate adjacencies. Experiments on standard benchmark Bayesian networks suggest that QACD improves structural coherence and interventional reliability in several noisy or inconsistent CI regimes, while remaining competitive with classical constraint-based, hybrid, and prior argumentation-based baselines.

Argumentation is a core practice in STEM education, but its productivity depends on who participates and how they interact. Higher-achieving students often dominate the talk and decision-making, while lower-achieving peers may disengage, defer, or comply without contributing substantive reasoning. Forming groups strategically based on students' stances and argumentation skills could help foster inclusive, evidence-based discourse. In practice, however, teachers are constrained in implementing this grouping strategy because it requires real-time insight into students' positions and the quality of their argumentation, information that is difficult to assess reliably and at scale during instruction. We present a generative AI-powered system, ArguAgent, that creates groups optimizing for stance heterogeneity while constraining argumentation quality differences to +/-1 level on a validated learning progression. ArguAgent uses a two-component assessment pipeline: first scoring student arguments on a 0-4 rubric, then clustering positions via semantic analysis. We validated the scoring component against human expert consensus (Krippendorff's ααα = 0.817) using 200 expert-generated scores. Testing three OpenAI models (GPT-4o-mini, GPT-5.1, GPT-5.2) with identical calibrated prompts, we found that systematic prompt engineering informed by human disagreement analysis contributed 89% of scoring improvement (QWK: 0.531 to 0.686), while model upgrades contributed an additional 11% (QWK: 0.686 to 0.708). Simulation testing across 100 classes demonstrated that the grouping algorithm achieves 95.4% of groups that meet both design criteria, a 3.2x improvement over random assignment. These results suggest ArguAgent can enable real-time, theoretically grounded grouping that promotes productive STEM argumentation in classrooms.

As software systems grow in complexity, they must satisfy an increasing number of competing quality attributes, making it essential to balance them in a principled manner -- for example, a safety requirement for sensor-fusion verification may conflict with a tight planning-cycle budget. Multi-agent large language model frameworks support this balancing process by assigning specialized agents to different objectives. However, their conflict resolution is typically heuristic. Requirements are aggregated implicitly without explicit acceptance or rejection, limiting auditability in regulated domains. We present ArgRE, a multi-agent requirements negotiation system that embeds Dung-style abstract argumentation into the negotiation stage. Each proposal, critique, and refinement is modeled as an argument, conflicts are represented as directed attack relations, and the accepted set of arguments is computed under grounded and preferred semantics. The pipeline further integrates KAOS goal modeling, multi-layer verification, and standards-oriented artifact generation. Evaluation across five case studies spanning safety-critical, financial, and information-system domains shows that ArgRE provides argument-level traceability absent from existing frameworks. Independent evaluators rated its decision justifications significantly higher than those of heuristic synthesis (4.32 vs. 3.07, p < 0.001), indicating improved auditability, while semantic intent preservation remains comparable (94.9% BERTScore F1) and compliance coverage reaches 84.7% versus 47.6%--47.8% for baselines. Structural analysis further confirms that the default pairwise protocol yields acyclic graphs in which grounded and preferred semantics coincide, whereas cross-pair arbitration introduces controlled cyclicity, leading to predictable divergence between the two semantics.

Preference-based argumentation frameworks (PAFs) extend Dung's approach to abstract argumentation (AAFs) by encoding preferences over arguments. Such preferences control the transformation of attacks into defeats, and different approaches to doing so result in different reductions from a PAF to an AAF. In this paper we consider a PAF inverse problem which takes an argumentation graph, a labelling and a semantics as an input, and outputs a yes" or no" as to whether there is a preference relation between the arguments which can yield the desired labelling. This inverse problem has applications in areas including preference elicitation and explainability. We consider this problem in the context of the four most widely-used preference based reductions under the complete semantics. We show that in most cases, the problem can be answered in polynomial time.

Large language models increasingly shape the information people consume: they are embedded in search, consulted for professional advice, deployed as agents, and used as a first stop for questions about policy, ethics, health, and politics. When such a model silently holds a position on a contested topic, that position propagates at scale into users' decisions. Eliciting a model's positions is harder than it first appears: contemporary assistants answer direct opinion questions with evasive disclaimers, and the same model may concede the opposite position once the user starts arguing one side. We propose a method, released as the open-source llm-bias-bench, for discovering the opinions an LLM actually holds on contested topics under conditions that resemble real multi-turn interaction. The method pairs two complementary free-form probes. Direct probing asks for the model's opinion across five turns of escalating pressure from a simulated user. Indirect probing never asks for an opinion and engages the model in argumentative debate, letting bias leak through how it concedes, resists, or counter-argues. Three user personas (neutral, agree, disagree) collapse into a nine-way behavioral classification that separates persona-independent positions from persona-dependent sycophancy, and an auditable LLM judge produces verdicts with textual evidence. The first instantiation ships 38 topics in Brazilian Portuguese across values, scientific consensus, philosophy, and economic policy. Applied to 13 assistants, the method surfaces findings of practical interest: argumentative debate triggers sycophancy 2-3x more than direct questioning (median 50% to 79%); models that look opinionated under direct questioning often collapse into mirroring under sustained arguments; and attacker capability matters mainly when an existing opinion must be dislodged, not when the assistant starts neutral.

ASPIC-style structured argumentation frameworks provide a formal basis for reasoning in artificial intelligence by combining internal argument structure with abstract argumentation semantics. A key challenge in these frameworks is ensuring compliance with five critical rationality postulates: closure, direct consistency, indirect consistency, non-interference, and crash-resistance. Recent approaches, including ASPIC$^{\ominus}$ and Deductive ASPIC$-$, have made significant progress but fall short of meeting all postulates simultaneously under a credulous semantics (e.g. preferred) in the presence of undercuts. This paper introduces Deductive ASPIC$^{\ominus}$, a novel framework that integrates gen-rebuttals from ASPIC$^{\ominus}$ with the Joint Support Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (JSBAFs) of Deductive ASPIC$-$, incorporating preferences. We show that Deductive ASPIC$^{\ominus}$ satisfies all five rationality postulates under a version of preferred semantics. This work opens new avenues for further research on robust and logically sound structured argumentation systems.

Understanding how policy is debated and justified in parliament is a fundamental aspect of the democratic process. However, the volume and complexity of such debates mean that outside audiences struggle to engage. Meanwhile, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to enable automated summarisation at scale. While summaries of debates can make parliamentary procedures more accessible, evaluating whether these summaries faithfully communicate argumentative content remains challenging. Existing automated summarisation metrics have been shown to correlate poorly with human judgements of consistency (i.e., faithfulness or alignment between summary and source). In this work, we propose a formal framework for evaluating parliamentary debate summaries that grounds argument structures in the contested proposals up for debate. Our novel approach, driven by computational argumentation, focuses the evaluation on formal properties concerning the faithful preservation of the reasoning presented to justify or oppose policy outcomes. We demonstrate our methods using a case-study of debates from the European Parliament and associated LLM-driven summaries.

RLHF-trained models are systematically biased toward agreement over accuracy, a structural property of the training process. We present Durable Evaluation Framework (DEF) Arbitration, a multi-agent architecture that mitigates identity-framed sycophancy by arbitrating between two models tuned to opposing DEFs, with a pragmatist synthesizer evaluating both arguments blind to their origins. This paper evaluates a prompt-based instantiation of DEF Arbitration. The key mechanisms are static DEF tuning, identity stripping before synthesis, single-round independent argumentation, and blind arbitration. We evaluate five instantiations on 200 stratified questions from SycophancyEval. All tested DEF variants (AnCifer, DeWin, FeynStein, BurGal, Trident) significantly outperform the single-model baseline (18.5%) and instructed-opposition baseline (29.0%), with DeWin achieving 48.5% accuracy (z=6.36, p<0.001 versus both). The variants are not significantly different from each other at n=200. The BurGal variant achieves 53.0% but functions as an architectural validity check; its consensus/heterodox axis structurally favors the heterodox model on every benchmark question. A pre-training floor affects an estimated 40% of questions; fine-tuned DEF models are the identified next step.