An Argumentative Explanation Framework for Generalized Reason Model with Inconsistent Precedents
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.19263v1
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 05:46:02 GMT
- Title: An Argumentative Explanation Framework for Generalized Reason Model with Inconsistent Precedents
- Authors: Wachara Fungwacharakorn, Gauvain Bourgne, Ken Satoh,
- Abstract summary: Precedential constraint is one foundation of case-based reasoning in AI and Law.<n>This paper examines an extension of the derivation state argumentation framework to explain the reasoning according to the generalized notion of the reason model.
- Score: 0.2803795115632137
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
- Abstract: Precedential constraint is one foundation of case-based reasoning in AI and Law. It generally assumes that the underlying set of precedents must be consistent. To relax this assumption, a generalized notion of the reason model has been introduced. While several argumentative explanation approaches exist for reasoning with precedents based on the traditional consistent reason model, there has been no corresponding argumentative explanation method developed for this generalized reasoning framework accommodating inconsistent precedents. To address this question, this paper examines an extension of the derivation state argumentation framework (DSA-framework) to explain the reasoning according to the generalized notion of the reason model.
Related papers
- Reasoning is about giving reasons [55.56111618153049]
We show that we can identify and extract the logical structure of natural language arguments in three popular reasoning datasets with high accuracies.<n>Our approach supports all forms of reasoning that depend on the logical structure of the natural language argument.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-08-20T07:26:53Z) - Rational Inference in Formal Concept Analysis [0.4499833362998487]
Defeasible conditionals are a form of non-monotonic inference.<n>KLM framework defines a semantics for the propositional case of defeasible conditionals.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-04-07T20:15:20Z) - Discussion Graph Semantics of First-Order Logic with Equality for Reasoning about Discussion and Argumentation [0.9790236766474198]
We formulate discussion graph semantics of first-order logic with equality for reasoning about discussion and argumentation.
We achieve the generality through a top-down formulation of the semantics of first-order logic (with equality) formulas.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-18T00:32:00Z) - Stable Normative Explanations: From Argumentation to Deontic Logic [1.3272510644778104]
This paper examines how a notion of stable explanation can be expressed in the context of formal argumentation.
We show how to build from argumentation neighborhood structures for deontic logic where this notion of explanation can be characterised.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-11T10:26:05Z) - Abductive Commonsense Reasoning Exploiting Mutually Exclusive
Explanations [118.0818807474809]
Abductive reasoning aims to find plausible explanations for an event.
Existing approaches for abductive reasoning in natural language processing often rely on manually generated annotations for supervision.
This work proposes an approach for abductive commonsense reasoning that exploits the fact that only a subset of explanations is correct for a given context.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-24T01:35:10Z) - 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) - Legal Detection of AI Products Based on Formal Argumentation and Legal
Ontology [4.286330841427189]
Current paper presents a structured argumentation framework for reasoning in legal contexts.
We show that using this combined theory of formal argumentation and DL-based legal logic, acceptable assertions can be obtained.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-09-07T11:08:08Z) - Theme Aspect Argumentation Model for Handling Fallacies [2.3230307339947274]
We present a novel approach to characterising fallacies through formal constraints.
By identifying fallacies with formal constraints, it becomes possible to tell whether a fallacy lurks in the modelled rhetoric with a formal rigour.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-05-30T14:34:09Z) - 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) - Explaining Causal Models with Argumentation: the Case of Bi-variate
Reinforcement [15.947501347927687]
We introduce a conceptualisation for generating argumentation frameworks (AFs) from causal models.
The conceptualisation is based on reinterpreting desirable properties of semantics of AFs as explanation moulds.
We perform a theoretical evaluation of these argumentative explanations, examining whether they satisfy a range of desirable explanatory and argumentative properties.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-05-23T19:39:51Z) - A General Framework for Modelling Conditional Reasoning -- Preliminary
Report [4.340338299803562]
We introduce and investigate here a formalisation for conditionals that allows the definition of a broad class of reasoning systems.
This framework covers the most popular kinds of conditional reasoning in logic-based KR.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-02-15T17:33:39Z) - 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) - 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)
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.