Abstract
Multi-agent LLM systems can formalize natural-language argumentation end-to-end, turning plain text into structured graphs by classifying components, connecting them with relations, and enriching the resulting graphs into formal models. Quality assurance for those graphs is almost always another LLMs: a reviewer, judge, or critic agent. On the other side, in adjacent neuro-symbolic fields, such generated output is often verified symbolically by external checks and solvers. In this work, we argue that in argument graph verification, the allocation should be similar, and based on what each instrument can guarantee. We propose layered verification: starting from deterministic checks, moving to solver-based and LLM reviews, and utilizing debate only under uncertainty, leaving human judgment for what no other instrument can decide. We ground our principle with a study on human-annotated graphs with injected structural defects. An LLM reviewer detects them at near-ceiling recall, including cycles in the support relation, but it objects to almost one in a ten correct graphs, even though it should not, happens to be inconsistent in verdict on identical inputs and is significantly slower than the equivalent exact check. It shows that while LLM reviewer does not lack the ability to detect structural defects, it is worth having a deterministic verification gates.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.27361
