AF-XRAY: Visual Explanation and Resolution of Ambiguity in Legal Argumentation Frameworks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.10831v1
• Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 22:00:45 GMT
• Title: AF-XRAY: Visual Explanation and Resolution of Ambiguity in Legal Argumentation Frameworks
• Authors: Yilin Xia, Heng Zheng, Shawn Bowers, Bertram Ludäscher,
• Abstract summary: We present AF-XRAY, an open-source toolkit for exploring, analyzing, and visualizing abstract AFs in legal reasoning.<n>We use real-world legal cases to show that our tool supports teleological legal reasoning by revealing how different assumptions lead to different justified conclusions.
• Score: 1.287452323302345
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Argumentation frameworks (AFs) provide formal approaches for legal reasoning, but identifying sources of ambiguity and explaining argument acceptance remains challenging for non-experts. We present AF-XRAY, an open-source toolkit for exploring, analyzing, and visualizing abstract AFs in legal reasoning. AF-XRAY introduces: (i) layered visualizations based on game-theoretic argument length revealing well-founded derivation structures; (ii) classification of attack edges by semantic roles (primary, secondary, blunders); (iii) overlay visualizations of alternative 2-valued solutions on ambiguous 3-valued grounded semantics; and (iv) identification of critical attack sets whose suspension resolves undecided arguments. Through systematic generation of critical attack sets, AF-XRAY transforms ambiguous scenarios into grounded solutions, enabling users to pinpoint specific causes of ambiguity and explore alternative resolutions. We use real-world legal cases (e.g., Wild Animals as modeled by Bench-Capon) to show that our tool supports teleological legal reasoning by revealing how different assumptions lead to different justified conclusions.

Related papers

• From Disagreement to Understanding: The Case for Ambiguity Detection in NLI [0.0]
  We show that content-based ambiguity offers a process-independent signal of divergent human perspectives.<n>A key limitation is the lack of annotated datasets for ambiguity and subtypes.<n>We propose addressing this gap through new annotated resources and unsupervised approaches to ambiguity detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-20T20:27:35Z)
• A Survey on Latent Reasoning [100.54120559169735]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities.<n>CoT reasoning that verbalizes intermediate steps limits the model's expressive bandwidth.<n>Latent reasoning tackles this bottleneck by performing multi-step inference entirely in the model's continuous hidden state.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-08T17:29:07Z)
• CLATTER: Comprehensive Entailment Reasoning for Hallucination Detection [60.98964268961243]
  We propose that guiding models to perform a systematic and comprehensive reasoning process allows models to execute much finer-grained and accurate entailment decisions.<n>We define a 3-step reasoning process, consisting of (i) claim decomposition, (ii) sub-claim attribution and entailment classification, and (iii) aggregated classification, showing that such guided reasoning indeed yields improved hallucination detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T17:02:52Z)
• Ground-R1: Incentivizing Grounded Visual Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning [96.01617809845396]
  Ground-R1 is a reinforcement learning framework that enables grounded visual reasoning without requiring explicit evidence or rationale annotations.<n>Ground-R1 achieves superior performance and exhibits emergent cognitive behaviors such as uncertainty awareness, spatial perception, and iterative refinement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T17:51:47Z)
• DELTA: Pre-train a Discriminative Encoder for Legal Case Retrieval via Structural Word Alignment [55.91429725404988]
  We introduce DELTA, a discriminative model designed for legal case retrieval. We leverage shallow decoders to create information bottlenecks, aiming to enhance the representation ability. Our approach can outperform existing state-of-the-art methods in legal case retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T10:40:14Z)
• Discovering Significant Topics from Legal Decisions with Selective Inference [0.0]
  We propose and evaluate an automated pipeline for discovering significant topics from legal decision texts. The method identifies case topics significantly correlated with outcomes, topic-word distributions and case-topic weights. We show that topics derived by the pipeline are consistent with legal doctrines in both areas and can be useful in other related legal analysis tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-02T07:00:24Z)
• A Semantic Approach to Decidability in Epistemic Planning (Extended Version) [72.77805489645604]
  We use a novel semantic approach to achieve decidability. Specifically, we augment the logic of knowledge S5$_n$ and with an interaction axiom called (knowledge) commutativity. We prove that our framework admits a finitary non-fixpoint characterization of common knowledge, which is of independent interest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-28T11:26:26Z)
• Robust Saliency-Aware Distillation for Few-shot Fine-grained Visual Recognition [57.08108545219043]
  Recognizing novel sub-categories with scarce samples is an essential and challenging research topic in computer vision. Existing literature addresses this challenge by employing local-based representation approaches. This article proposes a novel model, Robust Saliency-aware Distillation (RSaD), for few-shot fine-grained visual recognition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-12T00:13:17Z)
• How to disagree well: Investigating the dispute tactics used on Wikipedia [17.354674873244335]
  We propose a framework of dispute tactics that unifies the perspectives of detecting toxicity and analysing argument structure. This framework includes a preferential ordering among rebuttal-type tactics, ranging from ad hominem attacks to refuting the central argument. We show that these annotations can be used to provide useful additional signals to improve performance on the task of predicting escalation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-16T09:01:19Z)
• 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)
• An Argumentation-based Approach for Identifying and Dealing with Incompatibilities among Procedural Goals [1.1744028458220426]
  An intelligent agent may generate multiple pursuable goals, which may be incompatible among them. In this paper, we focus on the definition, identification and resolution of these incompatibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-11T01:01:34Z)
• Expressiveness of SETAFs and Support-Free ADFs under 3-valued Semantics [15.174903837196297]
  We shed light on the relation between SETAFs and support-free ADFs. It is only the presence of unsatisfiable acceptance conditions in support-free ADFs that discriminate the two approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-07T16:03:23Z)

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.