A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.12309v1
• Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 20:18:05 GMT
• Title: A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics
• Authors: Zlatina Mileva, Antonis Bikakis, Fabio Aurelio D'Asaro, Mark Law, Alessandra Russo
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 50.69905074548764
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Argumentation is a very active research field of Artificial Intelligence concerned with the representation and evaluation of arguments used in dialogues between humans and/or artificial agents. Acceptability semantics of formal argumentation systems define the criteria for the acceptance or rejection of arguments. Several software systems, known as argumentation solvers, have been developed to compute the accepted/rejected arguments using such criteria. These include systems that learn to identify the accepted arguments using non-interpretable methods. In this paper 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. Through an empirical evaluation we show that our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.

Related papers

• A Methodology for Gradual Semantics for Structured Argumentation under Incomplete Information [15.717458041314194]
  We provide a novel methodology for obtaining gradual semantics for structured argumentation frameworks. Our methodology accommodates incomplete information about arguments' premises. We demonstrate the potential of our approach by introducing two different instantiations of the methodology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T16:38:35Z)
• Counterfactual and Semifactual Explanations in Abstract Argumentation: Formal Foundations, Complexity and Computation [19.799266797193344]
  Argumentation-based systems often lack explainability while supporting decision-making processes. Counterfactual and semifactual explanations are interpretability techniques. We show that counterfactual and semifactual queries can be encoded in weak-constrained Argumentation Framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-07T07:27:27Z)
• An Encoding of Abstract Dialectical Frameworks into Higher-Order Logic [57.24311218570012]
  This approach allows for the computer-assisted analysis of abstract dialectical frameworks. Exemplary applications include the formal analysis and verification of meta-theoretical properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-08T09:32:26Z)
• Large Language Models as Analogical Reasoners [155.9617224350088]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting for language models demonstrates impressive performance across reasoning tasks. We introduce a new prompting approach, analogical prompting, designed to automatically guide the reasoning process of large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T00:57:26Z)
• Ranking-based Argumentation Semantics Applied to Logical Argumentation (full version) [2.9005223064604078]
  We investigate the behaviour of ranking-based semantics for structured argumentation. We show that a wide class of ranking-based semantics gives rise to so-called culpability measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-31T15:44:33Z)
• Rationale-Augmented Ensembles in Language Models [53.45015291520658]
  We reconsider rationale-augmented prompting for few-shot in-context learning. We identify rationale sampling in the output space as the key component to robustly improve performance. We demonstrate that rationale-augmented ensembles achieve more accurate and interpretable results than existing prompting approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-02T06:20:57Z)
• Automatic Debate Evaluation with Argumentation Semantics and Natural Language Argument Graph Networks [2.4861619769660637]
  We propose an original hybrid method to automatically evaluate argumentative debates. For that purpose, we combine concepts from argumentation theory with Transformer-based architectures and neural graph networks. We obtain promising results that lay the basis on an unexplored new instance of the automatic analysis of natural language arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-28T11:09:07Z)
• A Formalisation of Abstract Argumentation in Higher-Order Logic [77.34726150561087]
  We present an approach for representing abstract argumentation frameworks based on an encoding into classical higher-order logic. This provides a uniform framework for computer-assisted assessment of abstract argumentation frameworks using interactive and automated reasoning tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T10:45:59Z)
• Exploring Discourse Structures for Argument Impact Classification [48.909640432326654]
  This paper empirically shows that the discourse relations between two arguments along the context path are essential factors for identifying the persuasive power of an argument. We propose DisCOC to inject and fuse the sentence-level structural information with contextualized features derived from large-scale language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T06:49:19Z)

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.