Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful candidates for complex decision-making, leveraging vast encoded knowledge and remarkable zero-shot abilities. However, their adoption in high-stakes environments is hindered by their opacity; their outputs lack faithful explanations and cannot be effectively contested to correct errors, undermining trustworthiness. In this paper, we propose ART (Adaptive Reasoning Trees), a hierarchical method for claim verification. The process begins with a root claim, which branches into supporting and attacking child arguments. An argument’s strength is determined bottom-up via a pairwise tournament of its children, adjudicated by a judge LLM, allowing a final, transparent and contestable verdict to be systematically derived which is missing in methods like Chain-of-Thought (CoT). We empirically validate ART on multiple datasets, analyzing different argument generators and comparison strategies. Our findings show that ART’s structured reasoning outperforms strong baselines, establishing a new benchmark for explainable claim verification which is more reliable and ensures clarity in the overall decision making step.

We address the problem of data scarcity in harmful text classification for guardrailing applications and introduce GRAID (Geometric and Reflective AI-Driven Data Augmentation), a novel pipeline that leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) for dataset augmentation. GRAID consists of two stages: (i) generation of geometrically controlled examples using a constrained LLM, and (ii) augmentation through a multi-agentic reflective process that promotes stylistic diversity and uncovers edge cases. This combination enables both reliable coverage of the input space and nuanced exploration of harmful content. Using two benchmark data sets, we demonstrate that augmenting a harmful text classification dataset with GRAID leads to significant improvements in downstream guardrail model performance.