Explaining Arguments' Strength: Unveiling the Role of Attacks and Supports (Technical Report)

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.14304v2
• Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 17:37:43 GMT
• Title: Explaining Arguments' Strength: Unveiling the Role of Attacks and Supports (Technical Report)
• Authors: Xiang Yin, Potyka Nico, Francesca Toni,
• Abstract summary: We propose a novel theory of Relation Attribution Explanations (RAEs) RAEs offer fine-grained insights into the role of attacks and supports in quantitative bipolar argumentation towards obtaining the arguments' strength. We show the application value of RAEs in fraud detection and large language models case studies.
• Score: 13.644164255651472
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Quantitatively explaining the strength of arguments under gradual semantics has recently received increasing attention. Specifically, several works in the literature provide quantitative explanations by computing the attribution scores of arguments. These works disregard the importance of attacks and supports, even though they play an essential role when explaining arguments' strength. In this paper, we propose a novel theory of Relation Attribution Explanations (RAEs), adapting Shapley values from game theory to offer fine-grained insights into the role of attacks and supports in quantitative bipolar argumentation towards obtaining the arguments' strength. We show that RAEs satisfy several desirable properties. We also propose a probabilistic algorithm to approximate RAEs efficiently. Finally, we show the application value of RAEs in fraud detection and large language models case studies.

Related papers

• Applying Attribution Explanations in Truth-Discovery Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks [18.505289553533164]
  Argument Attribution Explanations (AAEs) and Relation Attribution Explanations (RAEs) are used to explain the strength of arguments under gradual semantics. We apply AAEs and RAEs to Truth Discovery QBAFs, which assess the trustworthiness of sources and their claims. We find that both AAEs and RAEs can provide interesting explanations and can give non-trivial and surprising insights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-09T17:36:39Z)
• 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)
• CASA: Causality-driven Argument Sufficiency Assessment [79.13496878681309]
  We propose CASA, a zero-shot causality-driven argument sufficiency assessment framework. PS measures how likely introducing the premise event would lead to the conclusion when both the premise and conclusion events are absent. Experiments on two logical fallacy detection datasets demonstrate that CASA accurately identifies insufficient arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-10T16:21:18Z)
• Exploring Jiu-Jitsu Argumentation for Writing Peer Review Rebuttals [70.22179850619519]
  In many domains of argumentation, people's arguments are driven by so-called attitude roots. Recent work in psychology suggests that instead of directly countering surface-level reasoning, one should follow an argumentation style inspired by the Jiu-Jitsu'soft' combat system. We are the first to explore Jiu-Jitsu argumentation for peer review by proposing the novel task of attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T13:54:01Z)
• Argument Attribution Explanations in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (Technical Report) [17.9926469947157]
  We propose a novel theory of Argument Explanations (AAEs) by incorporating the spirit of feature attribution from machine learning. AAEs are used to determine the influence of arguments towards topic arguments of interest. We study desirable properties of AAEs, including some new ones and some partially adapted from the literature to our setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-25T15:36:33Z)
• DiPlomat: A Dialogue Dataset for Situated Pragmatic Reasoning [89.92601337474954]
  Pragmatic reasoning plays a pivotal role in deciphering implicit meanings that frequently arise in real-life conversations. We introduce a novel challenge, DiPlomat, aiming at benchmarking machines' capabilities on pragmatic reasoning and situated conversational understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T10:41:23Z)
• Exhaustivity and anti-exhaustivity in the RSA framework: Testing the effect of prior beliefs [68.8204255655161]
  We focus on cases when sensitivity to priors leads to counterintuitive predictions of the Rational Speech Act (RSA) framework. We show that in the baseline RSA model, under certain conditions, anti-exhaustive readings are predicted. We find no anti-exhaustivity effects, but observed that message choice is sensitive to priors, as predicted by the RSA framework overall.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-14T20:35:03Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• The Role of Pragmatic and Discourse Context in Determining Argument Impact [39.70446357000737]
  This paper presents a new dataset to initiate the study of this aspect of argumentation. It consists of a diverse collection of arguments covering 741 controversial topics and comprising over 47,000 claims. We propose predictive models that incorporate the pragmatic and discourse context of argumentative claims and show that they outperform models that rely on claim-specific linguistic features for predicting the perceived impact of individual claims within a particular line of argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-06T23:00:37Z)

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.