Hybrid Reasoning on a Bipolar Argumentation Framework

Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (BAFs) are an important class of argumentation frameworks useful for capturing, reasoning with, and deriving conclusions from debates. They have the potential to make solid contributions to real-world multi-agent systems and human-agent interaction in domains such as legal reasoning, healthcare and politics. Despite this fact, practical systems implementing BAFs are largely lacking. In this demonstration, we provide a software system implementing novel algorithms for calculating extensions (winning sets of arguments) of BAFs. Participants in the demonstration will be able to input their own debates into our system, and watch a graphical representation of the algorithms as they process information and decide which sets of arguments are winners of the debate.

We introduce Incomplete Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (iBAFs), the extension of Dung’s Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AAFs) allowing the simultaneous presence of supports (borrowed from BAFs – Bipolar AAFs) and of uncertain elements of the argumentation graph (borrowed from iAAFs – incomplete AAFs). We investigate the computational complexity of verification problem (under the possible perspective) and the acceptance problem, by studying its sensitivity to the semantics of supports and the semantics of extensions. On the one hand, we show that adding supports on top of incompleteness does not affect the complexity of the acceptance. On the other hand, surprisingly, we show that the joint use of bipolarity and incompleteness has a deep impact on the complexity of the verification: for the semantics under which the verification over AAFs is polynomial-time solvable, although moving from AAFs to BAFs or to iAAFs does not change the complexity, the complexity of the verification over iBAFs may increase up to NP-complete.

The bipolar argumentation framework (BAF) setting is an extension of Dung’s setting for abstract argumentation, that considers an additional relation, called support relation. Several interpretations of such a support relation have been pointed out so far, including deductive, necessity, general and backing supports. These notions of support capture different kinds of interactions between arguments, that do not primarily correspond to attacks. In this paper, we propose a new notion of support, called monotonic support. Our approach is axiomatic: two postulates are introduced for capturing the intuition that underlies this notion of support in formal terms. The first postulate, monotony, prevents the support relation from downgrading the acceptance status of the supported argument. The second postulate, non-triviality, requires the existence of BAFs for which supporting an argument leads to increase its acceptance status. We present a general family of extension-based semantics for BAFs, called support score-based (SSB) semantics, that satisfy the two postulates and are parameterized by some aggregation functions. We prove a characterisation result linking the postulates that a SBB semantics satisfies with the properties of the aggregation functions used to define it. We also show that none of the previously introduced semantics for BAFs satisfies the monotony postulate.

We introduce a novel method to aggregate Bipolar Argumentation (BA) Frameworks expressing opinions by different parties in debates. We use Bipolar Assumption-based Argumentation (ABA) as an all-encompassing formalism for BA under different semantics. By leveraging on recent results on judgement aggregation in Social Choice Theory, we prove several preservation results, both positive and negative, for relevant properties of Bipolar ABA.

Argumentation frameworks have been widely studied both in terms of formal properties they exhibit under different semantics and in terms of applications they can support. But where are argumentation frameworks coming from, and how can argumentation, a model-based approach to AI, beneficially integrate with the nowadays-much-widespread data-centric AI perspective? In this talk I will overview applications empowered by a variety of (extension-based and gradual) semantics for abstract and bipolar argumentation frameworks automatically obtained from data (including but not limited to text) and from logical rules. Some of these applications require the integration of argumentation and machine learning, and result in a mixed model-based and data-centric pipeline. For some applications, the semantics informs the definition of the frameworks rather than, as is conventionally the case, being enforced on frameworks a posteriori.

In this paper, we extend the abstract argumentation framework proposed by [1] in order to take into account two kinds of interaction between arguments: a positive interaction (an argument can help, support another argument) and a negative interaction (an argument can attack another argument). In this new abstract argumentation framework, called a bipolar argumentation framework, we propose a gradual interaction-based valuation process. With this process, the value of each argument A only depends on the value of the arguments which are directly interacting with A in the argumentation system.

A new rape legislation, premised on the requirement of voluntariness, entered into force in Sweden during 2018. This article examines the application and interpretation of voluntariness in Swedish negligent rape judgements with a unique combination of the theoretical perspectives’ sociology of emotion and feminist-legal studies. The material consists of 12 court judgements, from the period 2018–2020, analysed by means of thematic content analysis. The findings show that the judgements in negligent rape cases are based on an evaluation of credibility, supported by evidence that consists of witness statements. These evaluations entail emotions and stereotypes about gender and sexuality, pertaining to rape myths – leading to inconsistent outcomes. Yet, some fundamental assumptions about gender and sexuality are challenged, indicating that the new law may invite discursive shifts and enhanced reflexivity in legal reasoning. The findings are valuable in the work to minimize legal discrimination and secure equality before the law.

This paper presents a formal approach to explaining change of inference in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs). When drawing conclusions from a QBAF and updating the QBAF to then again draw conclusions (and so on), our approach traces changes – which we call strength inconsistencies – in the partial order over argument strengths that a semantics establishes on some arguments of interest, called topic arguments. We trace the causes of strength inconsistencies to specific arguments, which then serve as explanations. We identify sufficient, necessary, and counterfactual explanations for strength inconsistencies and show that strength inconsistency explanations exist if and only if an update leads to strength inconsistency. We define a heuristic-based approach to facilitate the search for strength inconsistency explanations, for which we also provide an implementation.

Computational argumentation is primed to strengthen the current hot research field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), e.g., by dialectical approaches. In this paper, we extend and discuss a recently proposed approach of so-called strong acceptance on abstract argumentation that aims to support explaining argumentative acceptance. Our goal is to push these results into the realm of structured argumentation. In this setting, a knowledge base induces an abstract argumentation framework (AF) via instantiation. We investigate how and under which conditions it is possible to transfer results regarding strong acceptance between the given knowledge base and the induced AF. To this end we consider generic functions formalizing the interaction of the AF and the knowledge base. This approach helps us to infer rather general results making basic assumptions rather than dealing with the technical details of several structured argumentation formalisms. Along the way, we apply our techniques to the concrete approach of assumption-based argumentation (ABA) which constitutes one of the primal structured argumentation formalisms.

A key ingredient of computational argumentation in AI is the generation of arguments in favor of or against claims under scrutiny. In this paper we look at the complexity of argument construction and reasoning in the prominent structured formalism of assumption-based argumentation (ABA). We point out that reasoning in ABA by means of constructing an abstract argumentation framework (AF) gives rise to two main sources of complexity: (i) constructing the AF and (ii) reasoning within the constructed graph. Since both steps are intractable in general, it is no surprise that the best performing state-of-the-art ABA reasoners skip the instantiation procedure entirely and perform tasks directly on the input knowledge base. Driven by this observation, we identify and study atomic and symmetric ABA, two ABA fragments that preserve the expressive power of general ABA, and that can be utilized to have milder complexity in the first or second step. We show that using atomic ABA allows for an instantiation procedure for general ABA leading to polynomially-bounded AFs and that symmetric ABA can be used to create AFs that have mild complexity to reason on. By an experimental evaluation, we show that using the former approach with modern AF solvers can be competitive with state-of-the-art ABA solvers, improving on previous AF instantiation approaches that are hindered by intractable argument construction.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is a research area that clarifies AI decision-making processes to build user trust and promote responsible AI. Hence, a key scientific challenge in XAI is the development of methods that generate transparent and interpretable explanations while maintaining scalability and effectiveness in complex scenarios. Rule-based methods in XAI generate rules that can potentially explain AI inferences, yet they can also become convoluted in large scenarios, hindering their readability and scalability. Moreover, they often lack contrastive explanations, leaving users uncertain why specific predictions are preferred. To address this scientific problem, we explore the integration of computational argumentation—a sub-field of AI that models reasoning processes through defeasibility—into rule-based XAI systems. Computational argumentation enables arguments modelled from rules to be retracted based on new evidence. This makes it a promising approach to enhancing rule-based methods for creating more explainable AI systems. Nonetheless, research on their integration remains limited despite the appealing properties of rule-based systems and computational argumentation. Therefore, this study also addresses the applied challenge of implementing such an integration within practical AI tools. The study employs the Logic Learning Machine (LLM), a specific rule-extraction technique, and presents a modular design that integrates input rules into a structured argumentation framework using state-of-the-art computational argumentation methods. Experiments conducted on binary classification problems using various datasets from the UCI Machine Learning Repository demonstrate the effectiveness of this integration. The LLM technique excelled in producing a manageable number of if-then rules with a small number of premises while maintaining high inferential capacity for all datasets. In turn, argument-based models achieved comparable results to those derived directly from if-then rules, leveraging a concise set of rules and excelling in explainability. In summary, this paper introduces a novel approach for efficiently and automatically generating arguments and their interactions from data, addressing both scientific and applied challenges in advancing the application and deployment of argumentation systems in XAI.

Much work using argumentation frameworks (AFs) treats arguments as entirely abstract, related by a uniform attack relation that always succeeds unless the attacker can itself be defeated. However, this does not seem adequate for legal argumentation. Some proposals have suggested regulating attack relations using preferences or values on arguments and that filter the attack relation, so that, depending on the audience addressed, some attacks fail and so can be removed from the framework. This does not, however, capture a central feature of legal reasoning: how a decision with respect to the same facts and legal reasoning varies as the judicial context varies. Nor does it capture related context-dependent features of legal reasoning, such as how an audience can prefer or value an argument, yet be constrained by precedent or authority not to accept it. Nor does it explain how certain types of attack may not be allowed in a particular procedural context. For this reason, evaluation of the status of arguments within a given framework must be allowed to depend not only on the attack relations along with the preference or value of arguments, but also on the nature of the attacks and the context in which they are made. We present a means to represent these features, enabling us to account for a number of factors currently considered to be beyond the remit of formal AFs. We give several examples of the use of approach including: appealing a case, overruling a precedent and rehearing of a case as a civil rather than criminal proceeding.

Counterfactual explanations (CXs) are widely recognised as an essential technique for providing recourse recommendations for AI models. However, it is not obvious how to determine CXs in model multiplicity scenarios, where equally performing but different models can be obtained for the same task. In this paper, we propose novel qualitative and quantitative definitions of CXs based on explicit, nested quantification over (groups) of model decisions. We also study properties of these notions and identify decision problems of interest therefor. While our CXs are broadly applicable, in this paper we instantiate them within computational argumentation where model multiplicity naturally emerges, e.g. with incomplete and case-based argumentation frameworks. We then illustrate the suitability of our CXs for model multiplicity in legal and healthcare contexts, before analysing the complexity of the associated decision problems.

In this paper a new formal model of argument accrual is proposed as an adaptation of the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation. The new model aims to overcome several weaknesses of existing proposals. It is shown to have desirable formal properties that are in line with standard work on formal argumentation, and to be applicable to a range of situations in legal reasoning.

We introduce Forecasting Argumentation Frameworks (FAFs), a novel argumentation-based methodology for forecasting informed by recent judgmental forecasting research. FAFs comprise update frameworks which empower (human or artificial) agents to argue over time about the probability of outcomes, e.g. the winner of an election or a fluctuation in inflation rates, whilst flagging perceived irrationality in the agents' behaviour with a view to improving their forecasting accuracy. FAFs include five argument types, amounting to standard pro/con arguments, as in bipolar argumentation, as well as novel proposal arguments and increase/decrease amendment arguments. We adapt an existing gradual semantics for bipolar argumentation to determine the aggregated dialectical strength of proposal arguments and define irrational behaviour. We then give a simple aggregation function which produces a final group forecast from rational agents' individual forecasts. We identify and study properties of FAFs, and conduct an empirical evaluation which signals FAFs' potential to increase the forecasting accuracy of participants.