Interactive Explanations by Conflict Resolution via Argumentative Exchanges

As the field of explainable AI (XAI) is maturing, calls for interactive explanations for (the outputs of) AI models are growing, but the state-of-the-art predominantly focuses on static explanations. In this paper, we focus instead on interactive explanations framed as conflict resolution between agents (i.e. AI models and/or humans) by leveraging on computational argumentation. Specifically, we define Argumentative eXchanges (AXs) for dynamically sharing, in multi-agent systems, information harboured in individual agents' quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks towards resolving conflicts amongst the agents. We then deploy AXs in the XAI setting in which a machine and a human interact about the machine's predictions. We identify and assess several theoretical properties characterising AXs that are suitable for XAI. Finally, we instantiate AXs for XAI by defining various agent behaviours, e.g. capturing counterfactual patterns of reasoning in machines and highlighting the effects of cognitive biases in humans. We show experimentally (in a simulated environment) the comparative advantages of these behaviours in terms of conflict resolution, and show that the strongest argument may not always be the most effective.Comment: 14 pages, 2 figure

Computational Argumentation for the Automatic Analysis of Argumentative Discourse and Human Persuasion

Tesis por compendio[ES] La argumentación computacional es el área de investigación que estudia y analiza el uso de distintas técnicas y algoritmos que aproximan el razonamiento argumentativo humano desde un punto de vista computacional. En esta tesis doctoral se estudia el uso de distintas técnicas propuestas bajo el marco de la argumentación computacional para realizar un análisis automático del discurso argumentativo, y para desarrollar técnicas de persuasión computacional basadas en argumentos. Con estos objetivos, en primer lugar se presenta una completa revisión del estado del arte y se propone una clasificación de los trabajos existentes en el área de la argumentación computacional. Esta revisión nos permite contextualizar y entender la investigación previa de forma más clara desde la perspectiva humana del razonamiento argumentativo, así como identificar las principales limitaciones y futuras tendencias de la investigación realizada en argumentación computacional. En segundo lugar, con el objetivo de solucionar algunas de estas limitaciones, se ha creado y descrito un nuevo conjunto de datos que permite abordar nuevos retos y investigar problemas previamente inabordables (e.g., evaluación automática de debates orales). Conjuntamente con estos datos, se propone un nuevo sistema para la extracción automática de argumentos y se realiza el análisis comparativo de distintas técnicas para esta misma tarea. Además, se propone un nuevo algoritmo para la evaluación automática de debates argumentativos y se prueba con debates humanos reales. Finalmente, en tercer lugar se presentan una serie de estudios y propuestas para mejorar la capacidad persuasiva de sistemas de argumentación computacionales en la interacción con usuarios humanos. De esta forma, en esta tesis se presentan avances en cada una de las partes principales del proceso de argumentación computacional (i.e., extracción automática de argumentos, representación del conocimiento y razonamiento basados en argumentos, e interacción humano-computador basada en argumentos), así como se proponen algunos de los cimientos esenciales para el análisis automático completo de discursos argumentativos en lenguaje natural.[CA] L'argumentació computacional és l'àrea de recerca que estudia i analitza l'ús de distintes tècniques i algoritmes que aproximen el raonament argumentatiu humà des d'un punt de vista computacional. En aquesta tesi doctoral s'estudia l'ús de distintes tècniques proposades sota el marc de l'argumentació computacional per a realitzar una anàlisi automàtic del discurs argumentatiu, i per a desenvolupar tècniques de persuasió computacional basades en arguments. Amb aquestos objectius, en primer lloc es presenta una completa revisió de l'estat de l'art i es proposa una classificació dels treballs existents en l'àrea de l'argumentació computacional. Aquesta revisió permet contextualitzar i entendre la investigació previa de forma més clara des de la perspectiva humana del raonament argumentatiu, així com identificar les principals limitacions i futures tendències de la investigació realitzada en argumentació computacional. En segon lloc, amb l'objectiu de sol$\cdot$lucionar algunes d'aquestes limitacions, hem creat i descrit un nou conjunt de dades que ens permet abordar nous reptes i investigar problemes prèviament inabordables (e.g., avaluació automàtica de debats orals). Conjuntament amb aquestes dades, es proposa un nou sistema per a l'extracció d'arguments i es realitza l'anàlisi comparativa de distintes tècniques per a aquesta mateixa tasca. A més a més, es proposa un nou algoritme per a l'avaluació automàtica de debats argumentatius i es prova amb debats humans reals. Finalment, en tercer lloc es presenten una sèrie d'estudis i propostes per a millorar la capacitat persuasiva de sistemes d'argumentació computacionals en la interacció amb usuaris humans. D'aquesta forma, en aquesta tesi es presenten avanços en cada una de les parts principals del procés d'argumentació computacional (i.e., l'extracció automàtica d'arguments, la representació del coneixement i raonament basats en arguments, i la interacció humà-computador basada en arguments), així com es proposen alguns dels fonaments essencials per a l'anàlisi automàtica completa de discursos argumentatius en llenguatge natural.[EN] Computational argumentation is the area of research that studies and analyses the use of different techniques and algorithms that approximate human argumentative reasoning from a computational viewpoint. In this doctoral thesis we study the use of different techniques proposed under the framework of computational argumentation to perform an automatic analysis of argumentative discourse, and to develop argument-based computational persuasion techniques. With these objectives in mind, we first present a complete review of the state of the art and propose a classification of existing works in the area of computational argumentation. This review allows us to contextualise and understand the previous research more clearly from the human perspective of argumentative reasoning, and to identify the main limitations and future trends of the research done in computational argumentation. Secondly, to overcome some of these limitations, we create and describe a new corpus that allows us to address new challenges and investigate on previously unexplored problems (e.g., automatic evaluation of spoken debates). In conjunction with this data, a new system for argument mining is proposed and a comparative analysis of different techniques for this same task is carried out. In addition, we propose a new algorithm for the automatic evaluation of argumentative debates and we evaluate it with real human debates. Thirdly, a series of studies and proposals are presented to improve the persuasiveness of computational argumentation systems in the interaction with human users. In this way, this thesis presents advances in each of the main parts of the computational argumentation process (i.e., argument mining, argument-based knowledge representation and reasoning, and argument-based human-computer interaction), and proposes some of the essential foundations for the complete automatic analysis of natural language argumentative discourses.This thesis has been partially supported by the Generalitat Valenciana project PROME- TEO/2018/002 and by the Spanish Government projects TIN2017-89156-R and PID2020- 113416RB-I00.Ruiz Dolz, R. (2023). Computational Argumentation for the Automatic Analysis of Argumentative Discourse and Human Persuasion [Tesis doctoral]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/194806Compendi

Distributed argumentation technology: advancing risk analysis and regulatory compliance of distributed ledger technologies for transaction and management of securities

Distributed argumentation technology is a computational approach incorporating argumentation reasoning mechanisms within multi-agent systems. For the formal foundations of distributed argumentation technology, in this thesis we conduct a principle-based analysis of structured argumentation as well as abstract multi-agent and abstract bipolar argumentation. The results of the principle-based approach of these theories provide an overview and guideline for further applications of the theories. Moreover, in this thesis we explore distributed argumentation technology using distributed ledgers. We envision an Intelligent Human-input-based Blockchain Oracle (IHiBO), an artificial intelligence tool for storing argumentation reasoning. We propose a decentralized and secure architecture for conducting decision-making, addressing key concerns of trust, transparency, and immutability. We model fund management with agent argumentation in IHiBO and analyze its compliance with European fund management legal frameworks. We illustrate how bipolar argumentation balances pros and cons in legal reasoning in a legal divorce case, and how the strength of arguments in natural language can be represented in structured arguments. Finally, we discuss how distributed argumentation technology can be used to advance risk management, regulatory compliance of distributed ledgers for financial securities, and dialogue techniques

Communities of Power: Rawls\u27s Liberal Society and the Legitimate Use of Force

In The Law of Peoples John Rawls argues for an international community led by a society of liberal democracies committed to spreading peace and just governance. In doing so, he builds on Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace, which argued for a similar “League of Peace” to lead other nations. Both Kant and Rawls argue for disarmament and pacifism on the part of their leading nations. In this thesis, I take issue with Rawls’s pacifism, arguing that the liberal society faces threats from terrorism and humanitarian disasters abroad that could compromise their political aims to an extent that necessitates a forceful response. Working from this premise, I examine the history of philosophy of what constitutes a legitimate use of force. Using a theory of legitimacy couched in Jürgen Habermas’s discourse ethics I argue that the liberal states are able to legitimately use force abroad. Furthermore, since the legitimating process relies on a commitment to discourse, non-liberal states are precluded from taking similar actions. Finally, I address objections and in so doing argue that while liberal states may legitimately defend their political goals, they must combine such actions with robust aid and assistance abroad and rigorous oversight domestically to avoid reliance on force

6th Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines Conference (CADAAD 2016) - Book of Abstracts

Book of Abstracts of the 6th Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines Conference (CADAAD 2016

The malleability of political attitudes : Choice blindness, confabulation and attitude change

This thesis is an empirical and theoretical investigation of choice blindness, in particular in the domain of political attitudes. Choice blindness is a cognitive phenomenon in which people do not notice dramatic mismatches between what they choose and what they get while still offering seemingly introspective arguments to explain their (putative) choice. In four papers, it is demonstrated that the effect also applies to salient political attitudes and evaluations of political candidates. All studies took place in close connection to real elections, and new tools building of the underlying choice blindness methodology has been developed to collect the data. Further, the potential downstream effects are explored, such as influence on voting intentions, and lasting attitude changes. The potential mechanisms behind the effect are also investigated and confabulatory reasoning stands out as an important part in facilitating the observed attitude changes

Negative political advertising and the charge of inconsistency : the rhetoric of "flip-flop" arguments

Title from PDF of title page (University of Missouri--Columbia, viewed on May 25, 2010).The entire thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file; a non-technical public abstract appears in the public.pdf file.Dissertation advisor: Dr. Mitchell S. McKinney.Vita.Ph. D. University of Missouri--Columbia 2010.This dissertation performs a rhetorical analysis of televised presidential campaign advertisements that accuse rival candidates of being inconsistent or otherwise "flip-flopping." The verbal, visual, and audible dimensions of flip-flop spots from 1952-2008 were critically examined in relation to voters' values and repulsions as well as for the compelling progression of ideas and arguments within individual ads. Chapter four presents four overarching arguments related to political values and repulsions. First, flip-flop ads employ a distinct and archetypal wind metaphor that speaks to "changes" in political positions and political directions. Second, televised flip-flop ads often portray rival candidates as being involved in a vigorous debate with themselves. Third, flip-flop ads emasculate candidates by associating them with stereotypically feminine characteristics, the most notable of which is indecision. Fourth, flip-flop ads reflect and perpetuate destructive notions about politics and government. Chapter five examines the progression of ideas and arguments in televised political flip-flop spots. Kenneth Burke's theory of rhetorical form is used to critically evaluate how flip-flop ads create and satisfy audience appetites in such a way that creates a distinct "flip," and "flop" rhythm. This chapter also examines the arguments and fallacies made by political flip-flop commercials. Ultimately, it is argued that these ads are designed to appeal to voters' emotions as much as well as voters' sense of reason.Includes bibliographical reference

Competition in World Politics: Knowledge, Strategies and Institutions

The "return of great power competition" between (among others) the US, China, Russia and the EU is a major topic in contemporary public debate. But why do we think of world politics in terms of "competition"? Which information and which rules enable states and other actors in world politics to "compete" with one another? Which competitive strategies do they pursue in the complex environment of modern world politics? This cutting-edge edited collection discusses these questions from a unique interdisciplinary perspective. It offers a fresh account of competition in world politics, looking beyond its military dimensions to questions of economics, technology and prestige

Epistemic graphs for representing and reasoning with positive and negative influences of arguments

This paper introduces epistemic graphs as a generalization of the epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation. In these graphs, an argument can be believed or disbelieved up to a given degree, thus providing a more fine–grained alternative to the standard Dung's approaches when it comes to determining the status of a given argument. Furthermore, the flexibility of the epistemic approach allows us to both model the rationale behind the existing semantics as well as completely deviate from them when required. Epistemic graphs can model both attack and support as well as relations that are neither support nor attack. The way other arguments influence a given argument is expressed by the epistemic constraints that can restrict the belief we have in an argument with a varying degree of specificity. The fact that we can specify the rules under which arguments should be evaluated and we can include constraints between unrelated arguments permits the framework to be more context–sensitive. It also allows for better modelling of imperfect agents, which can be important in multi–agent applications

Learning Representations of Social Media Users

User representations are routinely used in recommendation systems by platform developers, targeted advertisements by marketers, and by public policy researchers to gauge public opinion across demographic groups. Computer scientists consider the problem of inferring user representations more abstractly; how does one extract a stable user representation - effective for many downstream tasks - from a medium as noisy and complicated as social media? The quality of a user representation is ultimately task-dependent (e.g. does it improve classifier performance, make more accurate recommendations in a recommendation system) but there are proxies that are less sensitive to the specific task. Is the representation predictive of latent properties such as a person's demographic features, socioeconomic class, or mental health state? Is it predictive of the user's future behavior? In this thesis, we begin by showing how user representations can be learned from multiple types of user behavior on social media. We apply several extensions of generalized canonical correlation analysis to learn these representations and evaluate them at three tasks: predicting future hashtag mentions, friending behavior, and demographic features. We then show how user features can be employed as distant supervision to improve topic model fit. Finally, we show how user features can be integrated into and improve existing classifiers in the multitask learning framework. We treat user representations - ground truth gender and mental health features - as auxiliary tasks to improve mental health state prediction. We also use distributed user representations learned in the first chapter to improve tweet-level stance classifiers, showing that distant user information can inform classification tasks at the granularity of a single message.Comment: PhD thesi