Argumentative Large Language Models for Explainable and Contestable Decision-Making

Overview

• Large language models (LLMs) have diverse knowledge and can apply it in various settings, making them promising for decision-making.
• However, they currently struggle to provide explainable and contestable outputs.
• This paper introduces a method to supplement LLMs with argumentative reasoning, creating "argumentative LLMs."
• Argumentative LLMs use LLMs to construct interpretable argumentation frameworks, enabling formal reasoning and explainable decision-making.

Plain English Explanation

Large language models (LLMs) are powerful AI systems trained on vast amounts of text data. They have developed a diverse understanding of the world, which they can apply to a wide range of tasks, from answering questions to generating text. This makes them a promising technology for assisting with decision-making.

However, the outputs of LLMs can be difficult for humans to understand and evaluate. It's not always clear how an LLM arrived at a particular conclusion or decision. This lack of explainability and the ability for humans to contest the LLM's reasoning is a significant limitation.

To address this, the researchers in this paper developed a new approach called "argumentative LLMs." The key idea is to use the LLM to construct a structured framework of arguments, which can then be used as the basis for formal reasoning and decision-making. This approach helps make the LLM's decision-making process more interpretable and open to scrutiny by humans.

In other words, argumentative LLMs don't just give you an answer - they also explain the reasoning behind that answer in a way that you can understand and challenge if needed. This could be very useful in high-stakes decision-making scenarios, where it's important to be able to justify the decisions being made.

Technical Explanation

The researchers introduce a method for supplementing large language models (LLMs) with argumentative reasoning, creating "argumentative LLMs." This approach involves using LLMs to construct interpretable argumentation frameworks, which then serve as the basis for formal reasoning in decision-making tasks.

Specifically, the argumentative LLM first uses the LLM to identify relevant arguments and counterarguments for a given decision-making scenario. It then structures these arguments into a formal argumentation framework, which captures the logical relationships between the different claims.

This argumentative framework can then be used to reason about the decision in a more transparent and explainable way. The researchers demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach in the decision-making task of claim verification, where argumentative LLMs achieve results competitive with or surpassing state-of-the-art techniques.

The interpretable nature of the argumentation frameworks and the formal reasoning process means that any decisions made by the argumentative LLM can be clearly explained to and contested by human users. This addresses a key limitation of current LLMs, which often struggle to provide explainable and contestable outputs.

Critical Analysis

The researchers acknowledge that their proposed argumentative LLM approach is a step towards reconciling the strengths and weaknesses of large language models in decision-making. By supplementing LLMs with structured argumentation, they are able to improve the explainability and contestability of the models' outputs.

However, the paper also notes that there are still some limitations to this approach. The construction of the argumentation frameworks relies on the LLM's ability to accurately identify and relate relevant arguments, which may not always be perfect. There is also the question of how to best present the argumentative reasoning to human users in a clear and intuitive way.

Additionally, the experiments in the paper are focused on a specific decision-making task (claim verification), and it remains to be seen how well the argumentative LLM approach would generalize to a wider range of decision-making scenarios. Further research and testing would be needed to fully evaluate the capabilities and limitations of this approach.

Overall, the introduction of argumentative LLMs represents an interesting and promising step towards developing more explainable and contestable AI decision-making systems. However, there is still work to be done to refine and validate this approach before it can be widely adopted.

Conclusion

This paper presents a novel method for supplementing large language models (LLMs) with argumentative reasoning, creating "argumentative LLMs." By using LLMs to construct interpretable argumentation frameworks, this approach enables more explainable and contestable decision-making.

The experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of argumentative LLMs in the task of claim verification, where they achieve competitive or superior performance compared to state-of-the-art techniques. This suggests that the integration of formal reasoning and argumentation can help address some of the key limitations of current LLMs, potentially making them more suitable for high-stakes decision-making applications.

While the proposed approach has some limitations that require further research, the concept of argumentative LLMs represents an important step towards developing AI systems that can provide justifiable and accountable decisions. As large language models continue to grow in power and influence, techniques like this will be crucial for ensuring their safe and ethical deployment in real-world settings.