Hybrid Artificial Intelligence to extract patterns and rules from argumentative and legal texts

This Thesis is composed of a selection of studies realized between 2019 and 2022, whose aim is to find working methodologies of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning for the detection and classification of patterns and rules in argumentative and legal texts. We define our approach as “hybrid”, since different methods have been employed combining symbolic AI (which involves “top-dow” structured knowledge) and sub-symbolic AI (which involves “bottom-up” data-driven knowledge). The first group of these works was dedicated to the classification of argumentative patterns. Following the Waltonian model of argument (according to which arguments are composed by a set of premises and a conclusion), and the theory of Argumentation Schemes, this group of studies was focused on the detection of argumentative evidences of support and opposition. More precisely, the aim of these first works was to show that argumentative patterns of opposition and support could be classified at fine-grained levels and without resorting to highly engineered features. To show this, we firstly employed methodologies based on Tree Kernel classifiers and TFIDF. In these experiments, we explored different combinations of Tree Kernel calculation and different data structures (i.e., different tree structures). Also, some of these combinations employs a hybrid approach where the calculation of similarity among trees is influenced not only by the tree structures but also by a semantic layer (e.g. those using “smoothed” trees and “compositional” trees). After the encouraging results of this first phase, we explored the use of a new methodology which was deeply changing the NLP landscape exactly in that year, fostered and promoted by actors like Google, i.e. Transfer Learning and the use of language models. These newcomer methodologies markedly improved our previous results and provided us with stronger NLP tools. Using Transfer Learning, we were also able to perform a Sequence Labelling task for the recognition of the exact span of argumentative components (i.e. claims and premises), which is crucial to connect the sphere of natural language to the sphere of logic. The last part of this work was finally dedicated to show how to use Transfer Learning for the detection of rules and deontic modalities. In this case, we tried to explore a hybrid approach which combines structured knowledge coming from two LegalXML formats (i.e., Akoma Ntoso and LegalRuleML) with sub-symbolic knowledge coming from pre-trained (and then fine-tuned) neural architectures

Hybrid Artificial Intelligence to Extract Patterns and Rules from Argumentative and Legal Texts

This Thesis is composed of a collection of works written in the period 2019-2022, whose aim is to find methodologies of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning to detect and classify patterns and rules in argumentative and legal texts. We define our approach “hybrid”, since we aimed at designing hybrid combinations of symbolic and sub-symbolic AI, involving both “top-down” structured knowledge and “bottom-up” data-driven knowledge. A first group of works is dedicated to the classification of argumentative patterns. Following the Waltonian model of argument and the related theory of Argumentation Schemes, these works focused on the detection of argumentative support and opposition, showing that argumentative evidences can be classified at fine-grained levels without resorting to highly engineered features. To show this, our methods involved not only traditional approaches such as TFIDF, but also some novel methods based on Tree Kernel algorithms. After the encouraging results of this first phase, we explored the use of a some emerging methodologies promoted by actors like Google, which have deeply changed NLP since 2018-19 — i.e., Transfer Learning and language models. These new methodologies markedly improved our previous results, providing us with best-performing NLP tools. Using Transfer Learning, we also performed a Sequence Labelling task to recognize the exact span of argumentative components (i.e., claims and premises), thus connecting portions of natural language to portions of arguments (i.e., to the logical-inferential dimension). The last part of our work was finally dedicated to the employment of Transfer Learning methods for the detection of rules and deontic modalities. In this case, we explored a hybrid approach which combines structured knowledge coming from two LegalXML formats (i.e., Akoma Ntoso and LegalRuleML) with sub-symbolic knowledge coming from pre-trained (and then fine-tuned) neural architectures

A literature review. Introduction to the special issue

UIDB/00183/2020 UIDP/00183/2020 PTDC/FER-FIL/28278/2017 CHIST-ERA/0002/2019Argumentation schemes [35, 80, 91] are a relatively recent notion that continues an extremely ancient debate on one of the foundations of human reasoning, human comprehension, and obviously human argumentation, i.e., the topics. To understand the revolutionary nature of Walton’s work on this subject matter, it is necessary to place it in the debate that it continues and contributes to, namely a view of logic that is much broader than the formalistic perspective that has been adopted from the 20th century until nowadays. With his book Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning, Walton attempted to start a dialogue between three different fields or views on human reasoning – one (argumentation theory) very recent, one (dialectics) very ancient and with a very long tradition, and one (formal logic) relatively recent, but dominating in philosophy. Argumentation schemes were proposed as dialectical instruments, in the sense that they represented arguments not only as formal relations, but also as pragmatic inferences, as they at the same time depend on what the interlocutors share and accept in a given dialogical circumstance, and affect their dialogical relation. In this introduction, the notion of argumentation scheme will be analyzed in detail, showing its different dimensions and its defining features which make them an extremely useful instrument in Artificial Intelligence. This theoretical background will be followed by a literature review on the uses of the schemes in computing, aimed at identifying the most important areas and trends, the most promising proposals, and the directions of future research.publishersversionpublishe

Detecting “slippery slope” and other argumentative stances of opposition using tree kernels in monologic discourse

The aim of this study is to propose an innovative methodology to classify argumentative stances in a monologic argumentative context. Particularly, the proposed approach shows that Tree Kernels can be used in combination with traditional textual vectorization to discriminate between different stances of opposition without the need of extracting highly engineered features. This can be useful in many Argument Mining sub-tasks. In particular, this work explores the possibility of classifying opposition stances by training multiple classifiers to reach different degrees of granularity. Noticeably, discriminating support and opposition stances can be particularly useful when trying to detect Argument Schemes, one of the most challenging sub-task in the Argument Mining pipeline. In this sense, the approach can be also considered as an attempt to classify stances of opposition that are related to specific Argument Schemes