Superficial Beliefs in LLM Decision-Making

We ask whether large language models (LLMs) merely imitate rationales when choosing between two options, or whether their choices reflect a systematic underlying decision structure. Using synthetic binary decision settings in which models choose between profiles defined by graded attributes, we compare the attribute a model says mattered most with the attribute that best explains its choice under a behavioural model fit to prior decisions. The behavioural model predicts held-out choices well, showing that model behaviour is systematically related to the visible attributes rather than being random. However, direct self-reports and a separate score-based judge recover the behaviourally inferred driver only partially. The resulting picture is neither one of arbitrary behaviour nor one of fully articulated belief - outputs are structured enough to support prediction, but explicit reasons track the recovered driver only imperfectly. This qualitative pattern persists across prompt-order and sampling perturbations, alternative behavioural models, targeted occlusion analyses, and structurally varied decision settings. We interpret this as evidence for ``superficial belief'' in LLM decision-making: models behave as if guided by probabilistic local priorities over attributes, while having only limited verbal access to the attributes that drive their decisions.

Neurosymbolic Learning for Inference-Time Argumentation

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.

Deep Arguing

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.

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

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.

Argumentation for Explainable and Globally Contestable Decision Support with LLMs

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.

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

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.

From User Preferences to Base Score Extraction Functions in Gradual Argumentation (with Appendix)

Gradual argumentation is a field of symbolic AI which is attracting attention for its ability to support transparent and contestable AI systems. It is considered a useful tool in domains such as decision-making, recommendation, debate analysis, and others. The outcomes in such domains are usually dependent on the arguments' base scores, which must be selected carefully. Often, this selection process requires user expertise and may not always be straightforward. On the other hand, organising the arguments by preference could simplify the task. In this work, we introduce \emph{Base Score Extraction Functions}, which provide a mapping from users' preferences over arguments to base scores. These functions can be applied to the arguments of a \emph{Bipolar Argumentation Framework} (BAF), supplemented with preferences, to obtain a \emph{Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework} (QBAF), allowing the use of well-established computational tools in gradual argumentation. We outline the desirable properties of base score extraction functions, discuss some design choices, and provide an algorithm for base score extraction. Our method incorporates an approximation of non-linearities in human preferences to allow for better approximation of the real ones. Finally, we evaluate our approach both theoretically and experimentally in a robotics setting, and offer recommendations for selecting appropriate gradual semantics in practice.

Constrained Assumption-Based Argumentation Frameworks

Assumption-based Argumentation (ABA) is a well-established form of structured argumentation. ABA frameworks with an underlying atomic language are widely studied, but their applicability is limited by a representational restriction to ground (variable-free) arguments and attacks built from propositional atoms. In this paper, we lift this restriction and propose a novel notion of constrained ABA (CABA), whose components, as well as arguments built from them, may include constrained variables, ranging over possibly infinite domains. We define non-ground semantics for CABA, in terms of various notions of non-ground attacks. We show that the new semantics conservatively generalise standard ABA semantics.

Selective Fine-Tuning for Targeted and Robust Concept Unlearning

Text guided diffusion models are used by millions of users, but can be easily exploited to produce harmful content. Concept unlearning methods aim at reducing the models' likelihood of generating harmful content. Traditionally, this has been tackled at an individual concept level, with only a handful of recent works considering more realistic concept combinations. However, state of the art methods depend on full finetuning, which is computationally expensive. Concept localisation methods can facilitate selective finetuning, but existing techniques are static, resulting in suboptimal utility. In order to tackle these challenges, we propose TRUST (Targeted Robust Selective fine Tuning), a novel approach for dynamically estimating target concept neurons and unlearning them through selective finetuning, empowered by a Hessian based regularization. We show experimentally, against a number of SOTA baselines, that TRUST is robust against adversarial prompts, preserves generation quality to a significant degree, and is also significantly faster than the SOTA. Our method achieves unlearning of not only individual concepts but also combinations of concepts and conditional concepts, without any specific regularization.

Synthesising Counterfactual Explanations via Label-Conditional Gaussian Mixture Variational Autoencoders

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) provide recourse recommendations for individuals affected by algorithmic decisions. A key challenge is generating CEs that are robust against various perturbation types (e.g. input and model perturbations) while simultaneously satisfying other desirable properties. These include plausibility, ensuring CEs reside on the data manifold, and diversity, providing multiple distinct recourse options for single inputs. Existing methods, however, mostly struggle to address these multifaceted requirements in a unified, model-agnostic manner. We address these limitations by proposing a novel generative framework. First, we introduce the Label-conditional Gaussian Mixture Variational Autoencoder (L-GMVAE), a model trained to learn a structured latent space where each class label is represented by a set of Gaussian components with diverse, prototypical centroids. Building on this, we present LAPACE (LAtent PAth Counterfactual Explanations), a model-agnostic algorithm that synthesises entire paths of CE points by interpolating from inputs' latent representations to those learned latent centroids. This approach inherently ensures robustness to input changes, as all paths for a given target class converge to the same fixed centroids. Furthermore, the generated paths provide a spectrum of recourse options, allowing users to navigate the trade-off between proximity and plausibility while also encouraging robustness against model changes. In addition, user-specified actionability constraints can also be easily incorporated via lightweight gradient optimisation through the L-GMVAE's decoder. Comprehensive experiments show that LAPACE is computationally efficient and achieves competitive performance across eight quantitative metrics.