Adaptive Arena-based Contestable Argumentative Network-of-Experts for Open-Ended Care Plan Coordination

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.

Self-Evolving Human-Centered Framework for Explainable Depression Symptom Annotation

Annotation quality is a major bottleneck in building reliable and explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) systems for mental health research. In depression-related datasets, labels are often assigned without structured evidence, symptom-level justification, or traceable alignment with the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR), limiting both transparency and downstream model interpretability. We propose a self-evolving, expert-in-the-loop annotation framework for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) that combines large language model (LLM)-assisted labeling with expert verification. The framework is intended to support the construction of explainable, DSM-5-TR-aligned datasets rather than to perform clinical diagnosis. It operates in three stages: candidate evidence selection from textual records, criterion-level DSM-5-TR analysis, and case-level synthesis that produces label-level diagnostic and severity annotations. A dual-memory architecture, composed of Example Memory and Reflection Memory, is designed to internalize expert feedback and iteratively improve future annotations without retraining. We describe this mechanism and leave its evaluation across multiple feedback cycles to future work. In addition to final labels, the framework exports clinical evidence, reasoning traces, and edit histories, enabling comprehensive auditability. In a pilot study using expert-reviewed samples, the proposed approach improves annotation consistency and explainability while reducing manual revision effort.

Consensus-based Agentic Large Language Model Framework for Harmonized Tariff Schedule Code Classification

Accurate Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) code classification is essential for customs clearance, duty assessment, trade statistics, and regulatory compliance in maritime logistics. However, exact HTS classification remains challenging because product descriptions are often short, incomplete, or ambiguous, while correct classification depends on hierarchical tariff structures, legal notes, and jurisdiction-specific rules. This paper proposes an agentic large language model (LLM) framework for Canadian 10-digit HTS code classification in smart-port and maritime logistics environments. The framework integrates multi-agent information retrieval, semantic retrieval over official tariff documents, evidence-grounded reasoning, consensus-based validation, element-wise voting across hierarchical code components, confidence estimation, and human-in-the-loop escalation. We evaluate the framework on a private dataset of 3,300 domain-expert-labeled product records collected from logistics and delivery contexts. Experimental results show that exact 10-digit classification remains difficult even for advanced LLMs, with performance decreasing from coarse chapter-level prediction to fine-grained tariff and statistical suffix assignment. These findings demonstrate the need for evidence-grounded, uncertainty-aware, and human-centered classification workflows rather than fully autonomous single-step prediction. The proposed framework supports more interpretable, accountable, and compliance-oriented HTS classification for maritime logistics and smart-port operations. Our code is available at https://github.com/Analytics-Everywhere-Lab/hts.

Contestable Multi-Agent Debate with Arena-based Argumentative Computation for Multimedia Verification

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.

Adaptive Collaboration of Arena-Based Argumentative LLMs for Explainable and Contestable Legal Reasoning

Legal reasoning requires not only high accuracy but also the ability to justify decisions through verifiable and contestable arguments. However, existing Large Language Model (LLM) approaches, such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), often produce unstructured explanations that lack a formal mechanism for verification or user intervention. To address this limitation, we propose Adaptive Collaboration of Argumentative LLMs (ACAL), a neuro-symbolic framework that integrates adaptive multi-agent collaboration with an Arena-based Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework (A-QBAF). ACAL dynamically deploys expert agent teams to construct arguments, employs a clash resolution mechanism to adjudicate conflicting claims, and utilizes uncertainty-aware escalation for borderline cases. Crucially, our framework supports a Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) contestability workflow, enabling users to directly audit and modify the underlying reasoning graph to influence the final judgment. Empirical evaluations on the LegalBench benchmark demonstrate that ACAL outperforms strong baselines across Gemini-2.5-Flash-Lite and Gemini-2.5-Flash architectures, effectively balancing efficient predictive performance with structured transparency and contestability. Our implementation is available at: https://github.com/loc110504/ACAL.