Extending Modular Semantics for Bipolar Weighted Argumentation (Technical Report)

Weighted bipolar argumentation frameworks offer a tool for decision support and social media analysis. Arguments are evaluated by an iterative procedure that takes initial weights and attack and support relations into account. Until recently, convergence of these iterative procedures was not very well understood in cyclic graphs. Mossakowski and Neuhaus recently introduced a unification of different approaches and proved first convergence and divergence results. We build up on this work, simplify and generalize convergence results and complement them with runtime guarantees. As it turns out, there is a tradeoff between semantics' convergence guarantees and their ability to move strength values away from the initial weights. We demonstrate that divergence problems can be avoided without this tradeoff by continuizing semantics. Semantically, we extend the framework with a Duality property that assures a symmetric impact of attack and support relations. We also present a Java implementation of modular semantics and explain the practical usefulness of the theoretical ideas

Assessing the Impact of Agents in Weighted Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks

Postprin

SpArX: Sparse Argumentative Explanations for Neural Networks

Neural networks (NNs) have various applications in AI, but explaining their decision process remains challenging. Existing approaches often focus on explaining how changing individual inputs affects NNs' outputs. However, an explanation that is consistent with the input-output behaviour of an NN is not necessarily faithful to the actual mechanics thereof. In this paper, we exploit relationships between multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs) and quantitative argumentation frameworks (QAFs) to create argumentative explanations for the mechanics of MLPs. Our SpArX method first sparsifies the MLP while maintaining as much of the original mechanics as possible. It then translates the sparse MLP into an equivalent QAF to shed light on the underlying decision process of the MLP, producing global and/or local explanations. We demonstrate experimentally that SpArX can give more faithful explanations than existing approaches, while simultaneously providing deeper insights into the actual reasoning process of MLPs

Evaluation of Analogical Arguments by Choquet Integral

Analogical arguments are a special type of inductive arguments, whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infersome further similarity that has yet to be observed. Although they arenot deductively valid, they may yield conclusions that are very prob-ably true, and may be more cogent than others in persuasive contexts.This paper tackles the question of their evaluation. It starts by dis-cussing their features, how they can be attacked/supported, and keyconsiderations for their evaluation. It argues in particular for the needof semantics that are able to take into account possible interactions(synergies, redundancies) between attackers (respectively support-ers) of any analogical argument. It presents principles that serve asguidelines for choosing candidate semantics. Then, it shows that ex-isting (extension, gradual, ranking) semantics are not suitable as theymay lead to inaccurate assessments. Finally, it redefines three exist-ing semantics using the well-known Choquet Integral for aggregatingattackers/supporter, and discusses their properties

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

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