arXiv subjects

Francesca Toni

Publications and source records attributed to Francesca Toni.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Contrastive Explanations in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks

Argumentation frameworks are useful tools for representing and reasoning with information in a variety of settings, e.g. in supplementing AI models as they perform classification tasks, with a notable benefit of providing additional explainability. In this paper, we introduce contrastive explanations for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs), one such formalism. Unlike most existing explanations for QBAFs, which explain the reasoning outcome of a single argument of interest (i.e. a topic argument), contrastive explanations explain the difference between two topic arguments. We introduce a general form of contrastive attribution functions (CAFs) and establish a set of general properties they should satisfy. We introduce CAFs based on removal, gradients and Shapley-values, and study their properties. Finally, to illustrate contrastive explanations, we demonstrate their usefulness in healthcare and bias identification settings.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Embedding Models for Stance-Aware Argument Retrieval

In computational argumentation, obtaining arguments that explicitly support or attack given claims is a critical precursor to downstream reasoning tasks. When these supporting and attacking arguments are to be retrieved using semantic search methods, they need to be assessed for topic-relevance to the claims of interest as well as for correctness of their (positive or negative) stance towards the claims. In this paper we explore how dense embedding models (hereafter, models), powering modern retrieval pipelines, can serve as the basis of semantic search incorporating this dual assessment. We show experimentally that existing models struggle with asymmetric reasoning, exhibiting a strong bias toward topical overlap while ignoring instructional stance. We also show that correcting this bias via contrastive training triggers a new failure mode where models over-correct, over-fixating on polarity keywords (e.g., "supports" or "refutes") at the expense of the semantic topic. We thus introduce diagnostic word-ablation metrics to quantify this phenomenon and propose a data-centric solution. By implementing a balanced argument curriculum alongside LLM-augmented, stance-inverted arguments, we force the (embedding) models to learn deeper directional logic rather than exploiting superficial lexical shortcuts. Our evaluation demonstrates that, for sufficiently powerful models, this approach can alleviate the observed overcorrection, achieving further improvements in stance-aware argument retrieval.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

A Theory of Post-hoc Debate Judgement

Debates have recently emerged as a useful methodology for agentic AI to improve performance as well as to aid explainability and user engagement. For example, LLM-empowered agents may debate internally (with themselves) and/or externally (with other agents). In many settings where debates are used, debates' outcomes and resulting outputs are determined post-hoc by external judges, often LLMs. In this paper we develop and test a novel theory of debate judgement applicable to all settings where agents engage in debates by providing pros and cons for their opinions therein. Specifically, we identify a number of formal properties that debate judgement may be required to satisfy in general, as concerns reproducibility, robustness, groundedness and explainability. Then, we explore their satisfaction formally and/or experimentally, for claim verification settings, for two specific alternative debate judgement methods: variants of the LLMs as a judge idea and formal semantics drawn from computational argumentation. We show that the two methods give similar accuracy performances but the former may lack formal guarantees that the latter brings. Overall, our study indicates argumentation semantics as an ideal candidate for principled judges in debate-driven AI.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

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.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

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.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

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.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Towards an Argumentative Foundation for Evaluative AI

Evaluative AI (EAI) has been recently proposed as a way to support human decision-making, not by producing a single recommendation, but by presenting competing hypotheses together with evidence for and against each. In this position paper, we advocate (computational) argumentation as a particularly suitable paradigm to provide a formal, computable foundation for forms of EAI that are explainable and contestable, setting the ground for a long-term research agenda towards distributed and human-centred EAI systems.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

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.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

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.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

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.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

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.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

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.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

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.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Strength Change Explanations in Quantitative Argumentation

In order to make argumentation-based inference contestable, it is crucial to explain what changes can achieve a desired (instead of the contested) inference result. To this end, we introduce strength change explanations for quantitative (bipolar) argumentation graphs. Strength change explanations describe changes to the initial strengths of a subset of the arguments in a given graph that can achieve a desired ordering based on the final strengths of some (potentially different) subset of arguments. We show that the existing notions of inverse and counterfactual problems can be reduced to strength change explanations. We also prove basic soundness and completeness properties of our strength change explanations, and demonstrate their existence and non-existence in some special cases. By applying a heuristic search, we demonstrate that we can often successfully find strength change explanations for layered graphs that are common in typical application scenarios; still, limitations remain for settings where we do not provide guarantees for the presence (or absence) of explanations.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2025

Latent Debate: A Surrogate Framework for Interpreting LLM Thinking

Understanding the internal thinking process of Large Language Models (LLMs) and the cause of hallucinations remains a key challenge. To this end, we introduce latent debate, a novel framework for interpreting model predictions through the lens of implicit internal arguments. Unlike the current work of self-consistency and multi-agent debate, which relies on explicit debates among multiple answers or multiple models, latent debate captures the hidden supporting and attacking signals that arise within a single model during a single inference. We first present a model- and task-agnostic conceptual framework, and then instantiate it symbolically to approximate the thinking process of LLMs on True/False prediction tasks. Empirical studies demonstrate that latent debate is a faithful structured surrogate model that has highly consistent predictions with the original LLM. Beyond interpretability, we demonstrate that latent debate provides a strong baseline for hallucination detection. Further analysis reveals strong correlations between hallucinations and debate patterns, such as a high degree of latent debates in the middle layers is linked to a higher risk of hallucinations. These findings position latent debate as a potential framework for understanding internal mechanisms of LLMs, especially for scenarios where internal (dis)agreements appear during the inference steps.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Heterogeneous Graph Neural Networks for Assumption-Based Argumentation

Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) is a powerful structured argumentation formalism, but exact computation of extensions under stable semantics is intractable for large frameworks. We present the first Graph Neural Network (GNN) approach to approximate credulous acceptance in ABA. To leverage GNNs, we model ABA frameworks via a dependency graph representation encoding assumptions, claims and rules as nodes, with heterogeneous edge labels distinguishing support, derive and attack relations. We propose two GNN architectures - ABAGCN and ABAGAT - that stack residual heterogeneous convolution or attention layers, respectively, to learn node embeddings. Our models are trained on the ICCMA 2023 benchmark, augmented with synthetic ABAFs, with hyperparameters optimised via Bayesian search. Empirically, both ABAGCN and ABAGAT outperform a state-of-the-art GNN baseline that we adapt from the abstract argumentation literature, achieving a node-level F1 score of up to 0.71 on the ICCMA instances. Finally, we develop a sound polynomial time extension-reconstruction algorithm driven by our predictor: it reconstructs stable extensions with F1 above 0.85 on small ABAFs and maintains an F1 of about 0.58 on large frameworks. Our work opens new avenues for scalable approximate reasoning in structured argumentation.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Next-Generation Language Models for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (NeLaMKRR 2025)

Reasoning is an essential component of human intelligence in that it plays a fundamental role in our ability to think critically, support responsible decisions, and solve challenging problems. Traditionally, AI has addressed reasoning in the context of logic-based representations of knowledge. However, the recent leap forward in natural language processing, with the emergence of language models based on transformers, is hinting at the possibility that these models exhibit reasoning abilities, particularly as they grow in size and are trained on more and more data. Still, despite ongoing discussions about what reasoning is in language models, it is still not easy to articulate to what extent these models are actually capable of reasoning. The goal of this workshop is to create a platform for researchers from different disciplines and/or AI perspectives to explore approaches and techniques with the aim to reconcile reasoning between language models using transformers and logic-based representations. The specific objectives include analysing the reasoning abilities of language models measured alongside KR methods, injecting KR-style reasoning abilities into language models (including by neuro-symbolic means), and formalising the kind of reasoning language models carry out. This exploration aims to uncover how language models can effectively integrate and leverage knowledge and reasoning with it, thus improving their application and utility in areas where precision and reliability are key requirements.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Retrieval- and Argumentation-Enhanced Multi-Agent LLMs for Judgmental Forecasting (Extended Version with Supplementary Material)

Judgmental forecasting is the task of making predictions about future events based on human judgment. This task can be seen as a form of claim verification, where the claim corresponds to a future event and the task is to assess the plausibility of that event. In this paper, we propose a novel multi-agent framework for claim verification, whereby different agents may disagree on claim veracity and bring specific evidence for and against the claims, represented as quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks (QBAFs). We then instantiate the framework for supporting claim verification, with a variety of agents realised with Large Language Models (LLMs): (1) ArgLLM agents, an existing approach for claim verification that generates and evaluates QBAFs; (2) RbAM agents, whereby LLM-empowered Relation-based Argument Mining (RbAM) from external sources is used to generate QBAFs; (3) RAG-ArgLLM agents, extending ArgLLM agents with a form of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) of arguments from external sources. Finally, we conduct experiments with two standard judgmental forecasting datasets, with instances of our framework with two or three agents, empowered by six different base LLMs. We observe that combining evidence from agents can improve forecasting accuracy, especially in the case of three agents, while providing an explainable combination of evidence for claim verification.

cs.AI↗