The deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) as agentic orchestrators has revolutionized task automation, but the need for privacy-preserving, cost-effective solutions demands on-device inference capabilities. However, local LLMs consistently underperform compared to frontier models in tool calling scenarios, struggling with both tool selection from large tool sets and accurate argument generation for complex parameter structures. We introduce a methodology that disaggregates a tool-calling task into two distinct subtasks: tool selection and argument generation. We propose "decoupled fine-tuning", a novel post-training approach that employs LoRA fine-tuning to create dedicated LoRA adapters for tool selection and tool-specific argument generation using separate loss masking for each of the subtasks. Furthermore, we present AgentFlux, an inference framework that leverages the LoRA adapters created using decoupled fine-tuning to perform efficient agent orchestration with the help of local models on end-user devices. AgentFlux decomposes the tool-call generation step into tool selection and argument generation, and dynamically loads the corresponding LoRA adapters to generate tool calls. Additionally, AgentFlux implements hierarchical orchestration to restrict the number of tools required for tool selection. Our experiments on the MCP-Bench benchmark demonstrate that the Qwen-2.5-7B model trained using decoupled fine-tuning improves the tool calling accuracy of the base model by 46%, and outperforms other local reasoning, non-reasoning and fine-tuned models of similar size in all cases, and models that are 2x larger, in most cases.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate potential in complex legal tasks like argument generation, yet their reliability remains a concern. Building upon pilot work assessing LLM generation of 3-ply legal arguments using human evaluation, this paper introduces an automated pipeline to evaluate LLM performance on this task, specifically focusing on faithfulness (absence of hallucination), factor utilization, and appropriate abstention. We define hallucination as the generation of factors not present in the input case materials and abstention as the model's ability to refrain from generating arguments when instructed and no factual basis exists. Our automated method employs an external LLM to extract factors from generated arguments and compares them against the ground-truth factors provided in the input case triples (current case and two precedent cases). We evaluated eight distinct LLMs on three tests of increasing difficulty: 1) generating a standard 3-ply argument, 2) generating an argument with swapped precedent roles, and 3) recognizing the impossibility of argument generation due to lack of shared factors and abstaining. Our findings indicate that while current LLMs achieve high accuracy (over 90%) in avoiding hallucination on viable argument generation tests (Tests 1 & 2), they often fail to utilize the full set of relevant factors present in the cases. Critically, on the abstention test (Test 3), most models failed to follow instructions to stop, instead generating spurious arguments despite the lack of common factors. This automated pipeline provides a scalable method for assessing these crucial LLM behaviors, highlighting the need for improvements in factor utilization and robust abstention capabilities before reliable deployment in legal settings. Link: https://lizhang-aiandlaw.github.io/An-Automated-Pipeline-for-Evaluating-LLM-Generated-3-ply-Case-Based-Legal-Arguments/

Large Language Models (LLMs), despite achieving state-of-the-art results in a number of evaluation tasks, struggle to maintain their performance when logical reasoning is strictly required to correctly infer a prediction. In this work, we propose Argument Generation as a method of forcing models to utilize their reasoning capabilities when other approaches such as chain-of-thought reasoning prove insufficient. Our method involves the generation of arguments for each possible inference result, and asking the end model to rank the generated arguments. We show that Argument Generation can serve as an appropriate substitute for zero-shot prompting techniques without the requirement to add layers of complexity. Furthermore, we argue that knowledge-probing techniques such as chain-of-thought reasoning and Argument Generation are only useful when further reasoning is required to infer a prediction, making them auxiliary to more common zero-shot approaches. Finally, we demonstrate that our approach forces larger gains in smaller language models, showcasing a complex relationship between model size and prompting methods in foundation models.

Despite the remarkable performance of Large Language Models (LLMs), they still struggle with generating logically sound arguments, resulting in potential risks such as spreading misinformation. An important factor contributing to LLMs' suboptimal performance in generating coherent arguments is their oversight of logical fallacies. To address this issue, we introduce FIPO, a fallacy-informed framework that leverages preference optimization methods to steer LLMs toward logically sound arguments. FIPO includes a classification loss, to capture the fine-grained information on fallacy categories. Our results on argumentation datasets show that our method reduces the fallacy errors by up to 17.5%. Furthermore, our human evaluation results indicate that the quality of the generated arguments by our method significantly outperforms the fine-tuned baselines, as well as prior preference optimization methods, such as DPO. These findings highlight the importance of ensuring models are aware of logical fallacies for effective argument generation.

Argument and debate are fundamental capabilities of human intelligence, essential for a wide range of human activities, and common to all human societies. Argumentation [1, 2, 3] takes the human logical argumentation process as the research object, and is a research field involving logic, philosophy, language, rhetoric, computer science and education. Striving to enable models to automatically understand and generate argument texts, computational argumentation, a newly emerging research field, is obtaining increasing attention from the research community [4]. Depending on the task objectives, computational argumentation tasks can be divided into two aspects, argument mining and argument generation. With the rapid development of modern technology, online forums like ChangeMyView allow people to freely exchange opinions on specific topics, making them suitable data sources for argument generation tasks, especially for designing artificial debaters, as online forums closely resemble real-world debates. Initial research in this field has focused on analyzing ChangeMyView data [5, 6] to summarize the key factors of persuasive arguments.

Using proprietary Large Language Models on legal tasks poses challenges due to data privacy issues, domain data heterogeneity, domain knowledge sophistication, and domain objectives uniqueness. We created Aalalp, a fine-tuned Mistral 7B model on instructions data related to specific Indian legal tasks. The performance of Aalap is better than gpt-3.5-turbo in 31\% of our test data and obtains an equivalent score in 34\% of the test data as evaluated by GPT4. Training Aalap mainly focuses on teaching legal reasoning rather than legal recall. Aalap is definitely helpful for the day-to-day activities of lawyers, judges, or anyone working in legal systems.

Computational argumentation has become an essential tool in various fields, including artificial intelligence, law, and public policy. It is an emerging research field in natural language processing (NLP) that attracts increasing attention. Research on computational argumentation mainly involves two types of tasks: argument mining and argument generation. As large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong abilities in understanding context and generating natural language, it is worthwhile to evaluate the performance of LLMs on various computational argumentation tasks. This work aims to embark on an assessment of LLMs, such as ChatGPT, Flan models and LLaMA2 models, under zero-shot and few-shot settings within the realm of computational argumentation. We organize existing tasks into 6 main classes and standardise the format of 14 open-sourced datasets. In addition, we present a new benchmark dataset on counter speech generation, that aims to holistically evaluate the end-to-end performance of LLMs on argument mining and argument generation. Extensive experiments show that LLMs exhibit commendable performance across most of these datasets, demonstrating their capabilities in the field of argumentation. We also highlight the limitations in evaluating computational argumentation and provide suggestions for future research directions in this field.

Argument generation is a challenging task in natural language processing, which requires rigorous reasoning and proper content organization. Inspired by recent chain-of-thought prompting that breaks down a complex task into intermediate steps, we propose Americano, a novel framework with agent interaction for argument generation. Our approach decomposes the generation process into sequential actions grounded on argumentation theory, which first executes actions sequentially to generate argumentative discourse components, and then produces a final argument conditioned on the components. To further mimic the human writing process and improve the left-to-right generation paradigm of current autoregressive language models, we introduce an argument refinement module which automatically evaluates and refines argument drafts based on feedback received. We evaluate our framework on the task of counterargument generation using a subset of Reddit/CMV dataset. The results show that our method outperforms both end-to-end and chain-of-thought prompting methods and can generate more coherent and persuasive arguments with diverse and rich contents.

Effective argumentation is essential towards a purposeful conversation with a satisfactory outcome. For example, persuading someone to reconsider smoking might involve empathetic, well founded arguments based on facts and expert opinions about its ill-effects and the consequences on one's family. However, the automatic generation of high-quality factual arguments can be challenging. Addressing existing controllability issues can make the recent advances in computational models for argument generation a potential solution. In this paper, we introduce ArgU: a neural argument generator capable of producing factual arguments from input facts and real-world concepts that can be explicitly controlled for stance and argument structure using Walton's argument scheme-based control codes. Unfortunately, computational argument generation is a relatively new field and lacks datasets conducive to training. Hence, we have compiled and released an annotated corpora of 69,428 arguments spanning six topics and six argument schemes, making it the largest publicly available corpus for identifying argument schemes; the paper details our annotation and dataset creation framework. We further experiment with an argument generation strategy that establishes an inference strategy by generating an ``argument template'' before actual argument generation. Our results demonstrate that it is possible to automatically generate diverse arguments exhibiting different inference patterns for the same set of facts by using control codes based on argument schemes and stance.