Argumentation for Knowledge Representation, Conflict Resolution, Defeasible Inference and Its Integration with Machine Learning

Modern machine Learning is devoted to the construction of algorithms and computational procedures that can automatically improve with experience and learn from data. Defeasible argumentation has emerged as sub-topic of artificial intelligence aimed at formalising common-sense qualitative reasoning. The former is an inductive approach for inference while the latter is deductive, each one having advantages and limitations. A great challenge for theoretical and applied research in AI is their integration. The first aim of this chapter is to provide readers informally with the basic notions of defeasible and non-monotonic reasoning. It then describes argumentation theory, a paradigm for implementing defeasible reasoning in practice as well as the common multi-layer schema upon which argument-based systems are usually built. The second aim is to describe a selection of argument-based applications in the medical and health-care sectors, informed by the multi-layer schema. A summary of the features that emerge from the applications under review is aimed at showing why defeasible argumentation is attractive for knowledge-representation, conflict resolution and inference under uncertainty. Open problems and challenges in the field of argumentation are subsequently described followed by a future outlook in which three points of integration with machine learning are proposed

ArgFrame: A Multi-Layer, Web, Argument-Based Framework for Quantitative Reasoning

Multiple systems have been proposed to perform computational argumentation activities, but there is a lack of options for dealing with quantitative inferences. This multi-layer, web, argument-based framework has been proposed as a tool to perform automated reasoning with numerical data. It is able to use boolean logic for the creation of if-then rules and attacking rules. In turn, these rules/arguments can be activated or not by some input data, have their attacks solved (following some Dung or rank-based semantics), and finally aggregated in different fashions in order to produce a prediction (a number). The framework is implemented in PHP for the back-end. A JavaScript interface is provided for creating arguments, attacks among arguments, and performing case-by-case analyses

Analysing online user activity to implicitly infer the mental workload of web-based tasks using defeasible reasoning

Mental workload can be considered the amount of cognitive load or effort used over time to complete a task in a complex system. Determining the limits of mental workload can assist in optimising designs and identify if user performance is affected by that design. Mental workload has also been presented as a defeasible concept, where one reason can defeat another and a 5-layer schema to represent domain knowledge to infer mental workload using defeasible reasoning has compared favourably to state-of-the-art inference techniques. Other previous work investigated using records of user activity for measuring mental workload at scale using web-based tasks For this research, a solution design and experiment were put together to analyse user activity from a web-based task to determine if mental workload can be inferred implicitly using defeasible reasoning. While there was one promising result, only weak correlation between inferred values and reference workload profile values was found

Comparing and Extending the Use of Defeasible Argumentation with Quantitative Data in Real-World Contexts

Dealing with uncertain, contradicting, and ambiguous information is still a central issue in Artificial Intelligence (AI). As a result, many formalisms have been proposed or adapted so as to consider non-monotonicity. A non-monotonic formalism is one that allows the retraction of previous conclusions or claims, from premises, in light of new evidence, offering some desirable flexibility when dealing with uncertainty. Among possible options, knowledge-base, non-monotonic reasoning approaches have seen their use being increased in practice. Nonetheless, only a limited number of works and researchers have performed any sort of comparison among them. This research article focuses on evaluating the inferential capacity of defeasible argumentation, a formalism particularly envisioned for modelling non-monotonic reasoning. In addition to this, fuzzy reasoning and expert systems, extended for handling non-monotonicity of reasoning, are selected and employed as baselines, due to their vast and accepted use within the AI community. Computational trust was selected as the domain of application of such models. Trust is an ill-defined construct, hence, reasoning applied to the inference of trust can be seen as non-monotonic. Inference models were designed to assign trust scalars to editors of the Wikipedia project. Scalars assigned to recognised trustworthy editors provided the basis for the analysis of the models’ inferential capacity according to evaluation metrics from the domain of computational trust. In particular, argument-based models demonstrated more robustness than those built upon the baselines despite the knowledge bases or datasets employed. This study contributes to the body of knowledge through the exploitation of defeasible argumentation and its comparison to similar approaches. It provides publicly implementations for the designed models of inference, which might be a useful aid to scholars interested in performing non-monotonic reasoning activities. It adds to previous works, empirically enhancing the generalisability of defeasible argumentation as a compelling approach to reason with quantitative data and uncertain knowledge

Comparing Defeasible Argumentation and Non-Monotonic Fuzzy Reasoning Methods for a Computational Trust Problem with Wikipedia

Computational trust is an ever-more present issue with the surge in autonomous agent development. Represented as a defeasible phenomenon, problems associated with computational trust may be solved by the appropriate reasoning methods. This paper compares two types of such methods, Defeasible Argumentation and Non-Monotonic Fuzzy Logic to assess which is more effective at solving a computational trust problem centred around Wikipedia editors. Through the application of these methods with real-data and a set of knowledge-bases, it was found that the Fuzzy Logic approach was statistically significantly better than the Argumentation approach in its inferential capacity

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) 2.0: a manifesto of open challenges and interdisciplinary research directions

Understanding black box models has become paramount as systems based on opaque Artificial Intelligence (AI) continue to flourish in diverse real-world applications. In response, Explainable AI (XAI) has emerged as a field of research with practical and ethical benefits across various domains. This paper highlights the advancements in XAI and its application in real-world scenarios and addresses the ongoing challenges within XAI, emphasizing the need for broader perspectives and collaborative efforts. We bring together experts from diverse fields to identify open problems, striving to synchronize research agendas and accelerate XAI in practical applications. By fostering collaborative discussion and interdisciplinary cooperation, we aim to propel XAI forward, contributing to its continued success. We aim to develop a comprehensive proposal for advancing XAI. To achieve this goal, we present a manifesto of 28 open problems categorized into nine categories. These challenges encapsulate the complexities and nuances of XAI and offer a road map for future research. For each problem, we provide promising research directions in the hope of harnessing the collective intelligence of interested stakeholders

Evaluating the Impact of Defeasible Argumentation as a Modelling Technique for Reasoning under Uncertainty

Limited work exists for the comparison across distinct knowledge-based approaches in Artificial Intelligence (AI) for non-monotonic reasoning, and in particular for the examination of their inferential and explanatory capacity. Non-monotonicity, or defeasibility, allows the retraction of a conclusion in the light of new information. It is a similar pattern to human reasoning, which draws conclusions in the absence of information, but allows them to be corrected once new pieces of evidence arise. Thus, this thesis focuses on a comparison of three approaches in AI for implementation of non-monotonic reasoning models of inference, namely: expert systems, fuzzy reasoning and defeasible argumentation. Three applications from the fields of decision-making in healthcare and knowledge representation and reasoning were selected from real-world contexts for evaluation: human mental workload modelling, computational trust modelling, and mortality occurrence modelling with biomarkers. The link between these applications comes from their presumptively non-monotonic nature. They present incomplete, ambiguous and retractable pieces of evidence. Hence, reasoning applied to them is likely suitable for being modelled by non-monotonic reasoning systems. An experiment was performed by exploiting six deductive knowledge bases produced with the aid of domain experts. These were coded into models built upon the selected reasoning approaches and were subsequently elicited with real-world data. The numerical inferences produced by these models were analysed according to common metrics of evaluation for each field of application. For the examination of explanatory capacity, properties such as understandability, extensibility, and post-hoc interpretability were meticulously described and qualitatively compared. Findings suggest that the variance of the inferences produced by expert systems and fuzzy reasoning models was higher, highlighting poor stability. In contrast, the variance of argument-based models was lower, showing a superior stability of its inferences across different system configurations. In addition, when compared in a context with large amounts of conflicting information, defeasible argumentation exhibited a stronger potential for conflict resolution, while presenting robust inferences. An in-depth discussion of the explanatory capacity showed how defeasible argumentation can lead to the construction of non-monotonic models with appealing properties of explainability, compared to those built with expert systems and fuzzy reasoning. The originality of this research lies in the quantification of the impact of defeasible argumentation. It illustrates the construction of an extensive number of non-monotonic reasoning models through a modular design. In addition, it exemplifies how these models can be exploited for performing non-monotonic reasoning and producing quantitative inferences in real-world applications. It contributes to the field of non-monotonic reasoning by situating defeasible argumentation among similar approaches through a novel empirical comparison