Skip to content
← Back to explorer

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

Adam Dejl, Deniz Gorur, Francesca Toni · Feb 27, 2026 · Citations: 0

Abstract

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.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper has direct human-feedback and/or evaluation protocol signal and is likely useful for eval pipeline design.

Eval-Fit Score

40/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

High-confidence candidate

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Demonstrations
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: General
  • Extraction source: Persisted extraction

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.45
  • Flags: ambiguous, runtime_fallback_extraction

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

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… HFEPX signals include Demonstrations with confidence 0.45. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Mar 5, 2026, 1:18 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • Argumentative LLMs (ArgLLMs) are an existing approach leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) and computational argumentation for decision-making, with the aim of making the…
  • Here we propose a web-based system implementing ArgLLM-empowered agents for binary tasks.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare its human-feedback setup against pairwise and rubric hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Verify metric definitions before comparing against your eval pipeline.

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Extraction confidence is probabilistic and should be validated for critical decisions.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • 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…
  • 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.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • 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…
  • Here we propose a web-based system implementing ArgLLM-empowered agents for binary tasks.

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Demonstrations

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.