A Methodology for Incompleteness-Tolerant and Modular Gradual Semantics for Argumentative Statement Graphs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.22209v5
• Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2025 15:29:39 GMT
• Title: A Methodology for Incompleteness-Tolerant and Modular Gradual Semantics for Argumentative Statement Graphs
• Authors: Antonio Rago, Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Francesca Toni, Tran Cao Son, William Yeoh,
• Abstract summary: We provide a novel methodology for obtaining Gradual semantics for statement graphs.<n>First, it naturally accommodates incomplete information, so that arguments with partially specified premises can play a meaningful role in the evaluation.<n>Second, it is modularly defined to leverage on any GS for QBAFs.
• Score: 15.717458041314194
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Gradual semantics (GS) have demonstrated great potential in argumentation, in particular for deploying quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks (QBAFs) in a number of real-world settings, from judgmental forecasting to explainable AI. In this paper, we provide a novel methodology for obtaining GS for statement graphs, a form of structured argumentation framework, where arguments and relations between them are built from logical statements. Our methodology differs from existing approaches in the literature in two main ways. First, it naturally accommodates incomplete information, so that arguments with partially specified premises can play a meaningful role in the evaluation. Second, it is modularly defined to leverage on any GS for QBAFs. We also define a set of novel properties for our GS and study their suitability alongside a set of existing properties (adapted to our setting) for two instantiations of our GS, demonstrating their advantages over existing approaches.

Related papers

• Localizing Factual Inconsistencies in Attributable Text Generation [91.981439746404]
  We introduce QASemConsistency, a new formalism for localizing factual inconsistencies in attributable text generation. We first demonstrate the effectiveness of the QASemConsistency methodology for human annotation. We then implement several methods for automatically detecting localized factual inconsistencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T22:53:48Z)
• 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)
• Contextualization Distillation from Large Language Model for Knowledge Graph Completion [51.126166442122546]
  We introduce the Contextualization Distillation strategy, a plug-in-and-play approach compatible with both discriminative and generative KGC frameworks. Our method begins by instructing large language models to transform compact, structural triplets into context-rich segments. Comprehensive evaluations across diverse datasets and KGC techniques highlight the efficacy and adaptability of our approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T08:56:49Z)
• How Well Do Text Embedding Models Understand Syntax? [50.440590035493074]
  The ability of text embedding models to generalize across a wide range of syntactic contexts remains under-explored. Our findings reveal that existing text embedding models have not sufficiently addressed these syntactic understanding challenges. We propose strategies to augment the generalization ability of text embedding models in diverse syntactic scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T08:51:00Z)
• "You Are An Expert Linguistic Annotator": Limits of LLMs as Analyzers of Abstract Meaning Representation [60.863629647985526]
  We examine the successes and limitations of the GPT-3, ChatGPT, and GPT-4 models in analysis of sentence meaning structure. We find that models can reliably reproduce the basic format of AMR, and can often capture core event, argument, and modifier structure. Overall, our findings indicate that these models out-of-the-box can capture aspects of semantic structure, but there remain key limitations in their ability to support fully accurate semantic analyses or parses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T21:47:59Z)
• Context-aware feature attribution through argumentation [0.0]
  We define a novel feature attribution framework called Context-Aware Feature Attribution Through Argumentation (CA-FATA) Our framework harnesses the power of argumentation by treating each feature as an argument that can either support, attack or neutralize a prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T20:02:02Z)
• 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)
• Towards Feasible Counterfactual Explanations: A Taxonomy Guided Template-based NLG Method [0.5003525838309206]
  Counterfactual Explanations (cf-XAI) describe the smallest changes in feature values necessary to change an outcome from one class to another. Many cf-XAI methods neglect the feasibility of those changes. We introduce a novel approach for presenting cf-XAI in natural language (Natural-XAI)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T12:48:57Z)
• 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)
• MURMUR: Modular Multi-Step Reasoning for Semi-Structured Data-to-Text Generation [102.20036684996248]
  We propose MURMUR, a neuro-symbolic modular approach to text generation from semi-structured data with multi-step reasoning. We conduct experiments on two data-to-text generation tasks like WebNLG and LogicNLG.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-16T17:36:23Z)
• Many-valued Argumentation, Conditionals and a Probabilistic Semantics for Gradual Argumentation [3.9571744700171743]
  We propose a general approach to define a many-valued preferential interpretation of gradual argumentation semantics. As a proof of concept, in the finitely-valued case, an Answer set Programming approach is proposed for conditional reasoning. The paper also develops and discusses a probabilistic semantics for gradual argumentation, which builds on the many-valued conditional semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-14T22:10:46Z)
• Towards Preserving Semantic Structure in Argumentative Multi-Agent via Abstract Interpretation [0.0]
  We investigate the notion of abstraction from the model-checking perspective. Several arguments are trying to defend the same position from various points of view, thereby reducing the size of the argumentation framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-28T21:32:52Z)
• Autoregressive Structured Prediction with Language Models [73.11519625765301]
  We describe an approach to model structures as sequences of actions in an autoregressive manner with PLMs. Our approach achieves the new state-of-the-art on all the structured prediction tasks we looked at.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-26T13:27:26Z)
• Admissibility in Strength-based Argumentation: Complexity and Algorithms (Extended Version with Proofs) [1.5828697880068698]
  We study the adaptation of admissibility-based semantics to Strength-based Argumentation Frameworks (StrAFs) Especially, we show that the strong admissibility defined in the literature does not satisfy a desirable property, namely Dung's fundamental lemma. We propose a translation in pseudo-Boolean constraints for computing (strong and weak) extensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-05T18:42:04Z)
• Can Unsupervised Knowledge Transfer from Social Discussions Help Argument Mining? [25.43442712037725]
  We propose a novel transfer learning strategy to overcome the challenges of unsupervised, argumentative discourse-aware knowledge. We utilize argumentation-rich social discussions from the ChangeMyView subreddit as a source of unsupervised, argumentative discourse-aware knowledge. We introduce a novel prompt-based strategy for inter-component relation prediction that compliments our proposed finetuning method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-24T06:48:56Z)
• AGM Belief Revision, Semantically [1.7403133838762446]
  We establish a generic, model-theoretic characterization of belief revision operators implementing the paradigm of minimal change. Our characterization applies to all Tarskian logics, that is, all logics with a classical model-theoretic semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-27T07:53:21Z)
• 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)
• DeepA2: A Modular Framework for Deep Argument Analysis with Pretrained Neural Text2Text Language Models [7.132217701156598]
  We present and implement a multi-dimensional, modular framework for performing deep argument analysis (DeepA2) using current pre-trained language models (PTLMs) We create a synthetic corpus for deep argument analysis, and evaluate ArgumentAnalyst on this new dataset and on existing data, specifically EntailmentBank. Our empirical findings vindicate the overall framework and highlight the advantages of a modular design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-04T15:24:07Z)
• 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)
• Infusing Finetuning with Semantic Dependencies [62.37697048781823]
  We show that, unlike syntax, semantics is not brought to the surface by today's pretrained models. We then use convolutional graph encoders to explicitly incorporate semantic parses into task-specific finetuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-10T01:27:24Z)
• A Diagnostic Study of Explainability Techniques for Text Classification [52.879658637466605]
  We develop a list of diagnostic properties for evaluating existing explainability techniques. We compare the saliency scores assigned by the explainability techniques with human annotations of salient input regions to find relations between a model's performance and the agreement of its rationales with human ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-25T12:01:53Z)

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.