Explainable AI through the Learning of Arguments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2202.00383v1
• Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:52:30 GMT
• Title: Explainable AI through the Learning of Arguments
• Authors: Jonas Bei, David Pomerenke, Lukas Schreiner, Sepideh Sharbaf, Pieter Collins, Nico Roos
• Abstract summary: Symbolic machine learning techniques learn a set of arguments as an intermediate representation. We investigate the learning of arguments from a 'case model' proposed by Verheij. We compare the learning of arguments from a case model with the HeRO algorithm and learning a decision tree.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Learning arguments is highly relevant to the field of explainable artificial intelligence. It is a family of symbolic machine learning techniques that is particularly human-interpretable. These techniques learn a set of arguments as an intermediate representation. Arguments are small rules with exceptions that can be chained to larger arguments for making predictions or decisions. We investigate the learning of arguments, specifically the learning of arguments from a 'case model' proposed by Verheij [34]. The case model in Verheij's approach are cases or scenarios in a legal setting. The number of cases in a case model are relatively low. Here, we investigate whether Verheij's approach can be used for learning arguments from other types of data sets with a much larger number of instances. We compare the learning of arguments from a case model with the HeRO algorithm [15] and learning a decision tree.

Related papers

• "Let's Argue Both Sides": Argument Generation Can Force Small Models to Utilize Previously Inaccessible Reasoning Capabilities [0.8999666725996974]
  We propose Argument Generation as a method of forcing models to utilize their reasoning capabilities. Our method involves the generation of arguments for each possible inference result, and asking the end model to rank the generated arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T19:49:30Z)
• Explaining Datasets in Words: Statistical Models with Natural Language Parameters [66.69456696878842]
  We introduce a family of statistical models -- including clustering, time series, and classification models -- parameterized by natural language predicates. We apply our framework to a wide range of problems: taxonomizing user chat dialogues, characterizing how they evolve across time, finding categories where one language model is better than the other.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-13T01:40:20Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [50.69905074548764]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way. Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• AutoAM: An End-To-End Neural Model for Automatic and Universal Argument Mining [0.0]
  We propose a novel neural model called AutoAM to solve these problems. Our model is a universal end-to-end framework, which can analyze argument structure without constraints like tree structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-17T15:26:21Z)
• Interpretability at Scale: Identifying Causal Mechanisms in Alpaca [62.65877150123775]
  We use Boundless DAS to efficiently search for interpretable causal structure in large language models while they follow instructions. Our findings mark a first step toward faithfully understanding the inner-workings of our ever-growing and most widely deployed language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-15T17:15:40Z)
• ArgU: A Controllable Factual Argument Generator [0.0]
  ArgU is a neural argument generator capable of producing factual arguments from input facts and real-world concepts. We have compiled and released an annotated corpora of 69,428 arguments spanning six topics and six argument schemes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-09T10:49:45Z)
• Retrieval-Augmented Generative Question Answering for Event Argument Extraction [66.24622127143044]
  We propose a retrieval-augmented generative QA model (R-GQA) for event argument extraction. It retrieves the most similar QA pair and augments it as prompt to the current example's context, then decodes the arguments as answers. Our approach outperforms substantially prior methods across various settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-14T02:00:32Z)
• Reinforcement Learning-based Dialogue Guided Event Extraction to Exploit Argument Relations [70.35379323231241]
  This paper presents a better approach for event extraction by explicitly utilizing the relationships of event arguments. We employ reinforcement learning and incremental learning to extract multiple arguments via a multi-turned, iterative process. Experimental results show that our approach consistently outperforms seven state-of-the-art event extraction methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-23T13:24:39Z)
• Extracting Implicitly Asserted Propositions in Argumentation [8.20413690846954]
  We study methods for extracting propositions implicitly asserted in questions, reported speech, and imperatives in argumentation. Our study may inform future research on argument mining and the semantics of these rhetorical devices in argumentation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T12:03:47Z)
• Aspect-Controlled Neural Argument Generation [65.91772010586605]
  We train a language model for argument generation that can be controlled on a fine-grained level to generate sentence-level arguments for a given topic, stance, and aspect. Our evaluation shows that our generation model is able to generate high-quality, aspect-specific arguments. These arguments can be used to improve the performance of stance detection models via data augmentation and to generate counter-arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-30T20:17:22Z)
• AMPERSAND: Argument Mining for PERSuAsive oNline Discussions [41.06165177604387]
  We propose a computational model for argument mining in online persuasive discussion forums. Our approach relies on identifying relations between components of arguments in a discussion thread. Our models obtain significant improvements compared to recent state-of-the-art approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-30T10:33:40Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.