ARGORA: Orchestrated Argumentation for Causally Grounded LLM Reasoning and Decision Making
Existing multi-expert LLM systems gather diverse perspectives but combine them through simple aggregation, obscuring which arguments drove the final decision. We introduce ARGORA, a framework that organizes multi-expert discussions into explicit argumentation graphs showing which arguments support or attack each other. By casting these graphs as causal models, ARGORA can systematically remove individual arguments and recompute outcomes, identifying which reasoning chains were necessary and whether decisions would change under targeted modifications. We further introduce a correction mechanism that aligns internal reasoning with external judgments when they disagree. Across diverse benchmarks and an open-ended use case, ARGORA achieves competitive accuracy and demonstrates corrective behavior: when experts initially disagree, the framework resolves disputes toward correct answers more often than it introduces new errors, while providing causal diagnostics of decisive arguments.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Decision MakingSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
On the Complexity of the Grounded Semantics for Infinite Argumentation Frameworks
Argumentation frameworks, consisting of arguments and an attack relation representing conflicts, are fundamental for formally studying reasoning under conflicting information. We use methods from mathematical logic, spec…
Weak Permission is not Well-Founded, Grounded and Stable
We consider the notion of weak permission as the failure to conclude that the opposite obligation. We investigate the issue from the point of non-monotonic reasoning, specifically logic programming and structured argumen…
GeoDisaster: Benchmarking Orchestrated Agents for Operational Disaster Geo-Intelligence
Remote-sensing vision-language models (RS-VLMs) have advanced Earth-observation analysis toward visual interpretation and instruction-following, yet fall short of operational geo-intelligence, which demands tool-grounded…
Reinforcement LearningSpatial ReasoningSAD: A Large-Scale Strategic Argumentative Dialogue Dataset
Argumentation generation has attracted substantial research interest due to its central role in human reasoning and decision-making. However, most existing argumentative corpora focus on non-interactive, single-turn sett…
AF-XRAY: Visual Explanation and Resolution of Ambiguity in Legal Argumentation Frameworks
Argumentation frameworks (AFs) provide formal approaches for legal reasoning, but identifying sources of ambiguity and explaining argument acceptance remains challenging for non-experts. We present AF-XRAY, an open-sourc…
Legal Reasoning