Disagree and Commit: Degrees of Argumentation-based Agreements

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.01992v1
• Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2024 12:49:58 GMT
• Title: Disagree and Commit: Degrees of Argumentation-based Agreements
• Authors: Timotheus Kampik, Juan Carlos Nieves,
• Abstract summary: We introduce the notion of agreement scenarios that allow artificial autonomous agents to reach such agreements. We introduce the notions of degrees of satisfaction and (minimum, mean, and median) agreement, as well as a measure of the impact a value in a value-based argumentation framework has on these notions. We analyze how degrees of agreement are affected when agreement scenarios are expanded with new information, to shed light on the reliability of partial agreements in dynamic scenarios.
• Score: 0.5524804393257919
• License:
• Abstract: In cooperative human decision-making, agreements are often not total; a partial degree of agreement is sufficient to commit to a decision and move on, as long as one is somewhat confident that the involved parties are likely to stand by their commitment in the future, given no drastic unexpected changes. In this paper, we introduce the notion of agreement scenarios that allow artificial autonomous agents to reach such agreements, using formal models of argumentation, in particular abstract argumentation and value-based argumentation. We introduce the notions of degrees of satisfaction and (minimum, mean, and median) agreement, as well as a measure of the impact a value in a value-based argumentation framework has on these notions. We then analyze how degrees of agreement are affected when agreement scenarios are expanded with new information, to shed light on the reliability of partial agreements in dynamic scenarios. An implementation of the introduced concepts is provided as part of an argumentation-based reasoning software library.

Related papers

• Dispute resolution in legal mediation with quantitative argumentation [0.0]
  We introduce a QuAM framework, which integrates the parties' knowledge and the mediator's knowledge, including facts and legal norms, when determining the acceptability of a mediation goal. We also develop a new formalism to model the relationship between the acceptability of a goal argument and the values assigned to a variable associated with the argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-25T12:05:46Z)
• Regularized Conventions: Equilibrium Computation as a Model of Pragmatic Reasoning [72.21876989058858]
  We present a model of pragmatic language understanding, where utterances are produced and understood by searching for regularized equilibria of signaling games. In this model speakers and listeners search for contextually appropriate utterance--meaning mappings that are both close to game-theoretically optimal conventions and close to a shared, ''default'' semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T09:42:36Z)
• 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)
• Generative Interpretation [0.0]
  We introduce generative interpretation, a new approach to estimating contractual meaning using large language models. We show that AI models can help factfinders ascertain ordinary meaning in context, quantify ambiguity, and fill gaps in parties' agreements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-14T02:59:27Z)
• Reconciling Predictive and Statistical Parity: A Causal Approach [68.59381759875734]
  We propose a new causal decomposition formula for the fairness measures associated with predictive parity. We show that the notions of statistical and predictive parity are not really mutually exclusive, but complementary and spanning a spectrum of fairness notions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T09:23:22Z)
• ConReader: Exploring Implicit Relations in Contracts for Contract Clause Extraction [84.0634340572349]
  We study automatic Contract Clause Extraction (CCE) by modeling implicit relations in legal contracts. In this work, we first comprehensively analyze the complexity issues of contracts and distill out three implicit relations commonly found in contracts. We propose a novel framework ConReader to exploit the above three relations for better contract understanding and improving CCE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T02:15:18Z)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)
• Detecting Logical Relation In Contract Clauses [94.85352502638081]
  We develop an approach to automate the extraction of logical relations between clauses in a contract. The resulting approach should help contract authors detecting potential logical conflicts between clauses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-02T19:26:32Z)
• A model to support collective reasoning: Formalization, analysis and computational assessment [1.126958266688732]
  We propose a new model to represent human debates and methods to obtain collective conclusions from them. This model overcomes drawbacks of existing approaches by allowing users to introduce new pieces of information into the discussion. We show that aggregated opinions can be coherent even if there is a lack of consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-14T06:55:32Z)
• A Formal Treatment of Contract Signature [0.0]
  The paper develops a logical understanding of processes for signature of legal contracts. It is motivated by applications to legal recognition of smart contracts on blockchain platforms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-23T04:39:56Z)

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.