Dialogue-based Explanations for Logical Reasoning using Structured Argumentation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11291v1
• Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:26:18 GMT
• Title: Dialogue-based Explanations for Logical Reasoning using Structured Argumentation
• Authors: Loan Ho, Stefan Schlobach,
• Abstract summary: We identify structural weaknesses of the state-of-the-art and propose a generic argumentation-based approach to address these problems. Our work provides dialogue models as dialectic-proof procedures to compute and explain a query answer. This allows us to construct dialectical proof trees as explanations, which are more expressive and arguably more intuitive than existing explanation formalisms.
• Score: 0.06138671548064355
• License:
• Abstract: The problem of explaining inconsistency-tolerant reasoning in knowledge bases (KBs) is a prominent topic in Artificial Intelligence (AI). While there is some work on this problem, the explanations provided by existing approaches often lack critical information or fail to be expressive enough for non-binary conflicts. In this paper, we identify structural weaknesses of the state-of-the-art and propose a generic argumentation-based approach to address these problems. This approach is defined for logics involving reasoning with maximal consistent subsets and shows how any such logic can be translated to argumentation. Our work provides dialogue models as dialectic-proof procedures to compute and explain a query answer wrt inconsistency-tolerant semantics. This allows us to construct dialectical proof trees as explanations, which are more expressive and arguably more intuitive than existing explanation formalisms.

Related papers

• 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)
• Formal Proofs as Structured Explanations: Proposing Several Tasks on Explainable Natural Language Inference [0.16317061277457]
  We propose a reasoning framework that can model the reasoning process underlying natural language inferences. The framework is based on the semantic tableau method, a well-studied proof system in formal logic. We show how it can be used to define natural language reasoning tasks with structured explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T01:24:09Z)
• 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)
• Modeling Hierarchical Reasoning Chains by Linking Discourse Units and Key Phrases for Reading Comprehension [80.99865844249106]
  We propose a holistic graph network (HGN) which deals with context at both discourse level and word level, as the basis for logical reasoning. Specifically, node-level and type-level relations, which can be interpreted as bridges in the reasoning process, are modeled by a hierarchical interaction mechanism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-21T07:34:27Z)
• MetaLogic: Logical Reasoning Explanations with Fine-Grained Structure [129.8481568648651]
  We propose a benchmark to investigate models' logical reasoning capabilities in complex real-life scenarios. Based on the multi-hop chain of reasoning, the explanation form includes three main components. We evaluate the current best models' performance on this new explanation form.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-22T16:01:13Z)
• Discourse-Aware Graph Networks for Textual Logical Reasoning [142.0097357999134]
  Passage-level logical relations represent entailment or contradiction between propositional units (e.g., a concluding sentence) We propose logic structural-constraint modeling to solve the logical reasoning QA and introduce discourse-aware graph networks (DAGNs) The networks first construct logic graphs leveraging in-line discourse connectives and generic logic theories, then learn logic representations by end-to-end evolving the logic relations with an edge-reasoning mechanism and updating the graph features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-04T14:38:49Z)
• Maieutic Prompting: Logically Consistent Reasoning with Recursive Explanations [71.2950434944196]
  We develop Maieutic Prompting, which infers a correct answer to a question even from the noisy and inconsistent generations of language models. Maieutic Prompting achieves up to 20% better accuracy than state-of-the-art prompting methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-24T06:36:42Z)
• A Description Logic for Analogical Reasoning [28.259681405091666]
  We present a mechanism to infer plausible missing knowledge, which relies on reasoning by analogy. This is the first paper that studies analog reasoning within the setting of description logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-10T19:06:07Z)
• Thinking About Causation: A Causal Language with Epistemic Operators [58.720142291102135]
  We extend the notion of a causal model with a representation of the state of an agent. On the side of the object language, we add operators to express knowledge and the act of observing new information. We provide a sound and complete axiomatization of the logic, and discuss the relation of this framework to causal team semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-30T12:16:45Z)
• Higher-order Logic as Lingua Franca -- Integrating Argumentative Discourse and Deep Logical Analysis [0.0]
  We present an approach towards the deep, pluralistic logical analysis of argumentative discourse. We use state-of-the-art automated reasoning technology for classical higher-order logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-02T11:07:53Z)

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.