Facets in Argumentation: A Formal Approach to Argument Significance

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10982v1
• Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 08:29:38 GMT
• Title: Facets in Argumentation: A Formal Approach to Argument Significance
• Authors: Johannes Fichte, Nicolas Fröhlich, Markus Hecher, Victor Lagerkvist, Yasir Mahmood, Arne Meier, Jonathan Persson,
• Abstract summary: Argumentation is a central subarea of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for modeling and reasoning about arguments.<n>We introduce a novel concept (facets) for reasoning between decision and enumeration.<n>We study the complexity and show that tasks involving facets are much easier than counting extensions.
• Score: 18.218298349840023
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Argumentation is a central subarea of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for modeling and reasoning about arguments. The semantics of abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) is given by sets of arguments (extensions) and conditions on the relationship between them, such as stable or admissible. Today's solvers implement tasks such as finding extensions, deciding credulous or skeptical acceptance, counting, or enumerating extensions. While these tasks are well charted, the area between decision, counting/enumeration and fine-grained reasoning requires expensive reasoning so far. We introduce a novel concept (facets) for reasoning between decision and enumeration. Facets are arguments that belong to some extensions (credulous) but not to all extensions (skeptical). They are most natural when a user aims to navigate, filter, or comprehend the significance of specific arguments, according to their needs. We study the complexity and show that tasks involving facets are much easier than counting extensions. Finally, we provide an implementation, and conduct experiments to demonstrate feasibility.

Related papers

• Critical Thinking: Which Kinds of Complexity Govern Optimal Reasoning Length? [72.70486097967124]
  We formalize a framework using deterministic finite automata (DFAs)<n>We show that there exists an optimal amount of reasoning tokens such that the probability of producing a correct solution is maximized.<n>We then demonstrate an implication of these findings: being able to predict the optimal number of reasoning tokens for new problems and filtering out non-optimal length answers results in consistent accuracy improvements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T17:45:58Z)
• Rejection in Abstract Argumentation: Harder Than Acceptance? [18.299322342860513]
  We consider flexible conditions for emphrejecting an argument from an extension, which we call rejection conditions (RCs) Rejection AFs are highly expressive, giving rise to natural problems on higher levels of the hierarchy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T09:37:04Z)
• 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)
• LaRS: Latent Reasoning Skills for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [61.7853049843921]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting is a popular in-context learning approach for large language models (LLMs)<n>This paper introduces a new approach named Latent Reasoning Skills (LaRS) that employs unsupervised learning to create a latent space representation of rationales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-07T20:36:10Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [47.84663434179473]
  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.<n>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)
• AQE: Argument Quadruplet Extraction via a Quad-Tagging Augmented Generative Approach [40.510976649949576]
  We propose a challenging argument quadruplet extraction task (AQE) AQE can provide an all-in-one extraction of four argumentative components, i.e., claims, evidence, evidence types, and stances. We propose a novel quad-tagging augmented generative approach, which leverages a quadruplet tagging module to augment the training of the generative framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T14:35:53Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Necessary and Sufficient Explanations in Abstract Argumentation [3.9849889653167208]
  We discuss necessary and sufficient explanations for formal argumentation. We study necessity and sufficiency: what (sets of) arguments are necessary or sufficient for the (non-acceptance) of an argument?
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-04T17:12:12Z)
• 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)
• Aspect-Controlled Neural Argument Generation [65.91772010586605]
  We train a language model for argument generation that can be controlled on a fine-grained level to generate sentence-level arguments for a given topic, stance, and aspect. Our evaluation shows that our generation model is able to generate high-quality, aspect-specific arguments. These arguments can be used to improve the performance of stance detection models via data augmentation and to generate counter-arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-30T20:17:22Z)

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.