Machine Arguing: From Data and Rules to Argumentation Frameworks

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.

Examining the effectiveness of machine learning techniques in analyzing engineering students’ decision-making processes through topic modeling during simulation-based design tasks is crucial for advancing educational methods and tools. Thus, this study presents a comparative analysis of different supervised and unsupervised machine learning techniques for topic modeling, along with human validation. Hence, this manuscript contributes by evaluating the effectiveness of these techniques in identifying nuanced topics within the argumentation framework and improving computational methods for assessing students’ abilities and performance levels based on their informed decisions. This study examined the decision-making processes of engineering students as they participated in a simulation-based design challenge. During this task, students were prompted to use an argumentation framework to articulate their claims, evidence, and reasoning, by recording their informed design decisions in a design journal. This study combined qualitative and computational methods to analyze the students’ design journals and ensured the accuracy of the findings through the researchers’ review and interpretations of the results. Different machine learning models, including random forest, SVM, and K-nearest neighbors (KNNs), were tested for multilabel regression, using preprocessing techniques such as TF-IDF, GloVe, and BERT embeddings. Additionally, hyperparameter optimization and model interpretability were explored, along with models like RNNs with LSTM, XGBoost, and LightGBM. The results demonstrate that both supervised and unsupervised machine learning models effectively identified nuanced topics within the argumentation framework used during the design challenge of designing a zero-energy home for a Midwestern city using a CAD/CAE simulation platform. Notably, XGBoost exhibited superior predictive accuracy in estimating topic proportions, highlighting its potential for broader application in engineering education.

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.

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.

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.

In many applications, black-box prediction is not satisfactory, and understanding the data is of critical importance. Typically, approaches useful for understanding of data involve logical rules, evaluate similarity to prototypes, or are based on visualization or graphical methods. This paper is focused on the extraction and use of logical rules for data understanding. All aspects of rule generation, optimization, and application are described, including the problem of finding good symbolic descriptors for continuous data, tradeoffs between accuracy and simplicity at the rule-extraction stage, and tradeoffs between rejection and error level at the rule optimization stage. Stability of rule-based description, calculation of probabilities from rules, and other related issues are also discussed. Major approaches to extraction of logical rules based on neural networks, decision trees, machine learning, and statistical methods are introduced. Optimization and application issues for sets of logical rules are described. Applications of such methods to benchmark and real-life problems are reported and illustrated with simple logical rules for many datasets. Challenges and new directions for research are outlined.

In this paper, we explore the relation between an agent’s doxastic attitude and her arguments in support of a given claim. Our main contribution is the design of a logical setting that allows us reason about binary arguments which are either in favour or against a certain claim. This is a setting in which arguments and propositions are the basic building blocks so that the concept of argument-based belief emerges in a straightforward way. We work against the background of Dung’s abstract argumentation framework, extending it to a new setting in which we can study the formal properties of binary arguments as well as the larger structures they establish. This paper introduces a formal ‘two-dimensional’ language to talk about propositions and arguments, for which a sound and complete axiom system is provided.

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.

The formalism of support logic provides a framework for deductive inference, with mathematically sound and consistent treatment of uncertainty and evidence which is aggregated through the reasoning process. The authors apply support logic programming to pattern recognition. Initially, a pattern classifier is constructed by encoding expert knowledge of the problem domain into rules of support logic. Fuzzy sets allow the general properties of features to be described precisely. Semantic unification provides an alternative to the usual metric-based similarity criteria. The validity of the approach is established by cross-validating the support logic classifier against models from alternative paradigms. The authors then attempt to circumvent the requirement for a domain expert, and assess the extent to which data-driven learning processes can be used to automatically derive components of the support logic classifier.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

Access control policy verification ensures that there are no faults within the policy that leak or block access privileges. As a software test, access control policy verification relies on methods such as model proof, data structure, system simulation, and test oracle to verify that the policy logic functions as expected. However, these methods have capability and performance issues related to inaccuracy and complexity limited by applied technologies. For instance, model proof, test oracle, and data structure methods initially assume that the policy under verification is faultless unless the policy model cannot hold for test cases. Thus, the challenge of the method is to compose test cases that can comprehensively discover all faults. Alternatively, a system simulation method requires translating the policy to a simulated system. The translation between systems may be difficult or impractical to implement if the policy logic is complicated or the number of policy rules is large. To answer these challenges, this internal report (IR) proposes an efficient and straightforward method for access control policy verification by applying a classification algorithm of machine learning, which does not require comprehensive test cases, oracle, or system translation but rather checks the logic of policy rules directly, making it more efficient and feasible compared to traditional methods.

Argumentation has gained traction as a formalism to make more transparent decisions and provide formal explanations recently. In this paper, we present an argumentation-based approach to decision making that can support modelling and automated reasoning about complex qualitative preferences and offer dialogical explanations for the decisions made. We first propose Qualitative Preference Decision Frameworks (QPDFs). In a QPDF, we use contextual priority to represent the relative importance of combinations of goals in different contexts and define associated strategies for deriving decision preferences based on prioritized goal combinations. To automate the decision computation, we map QPDFs to Assumption-based Argumentation (ABA) frameworks so that we can utilize existing ABA argumentative engines for our implementation. We implemented our approach for two tasks, diagnostics and prognostics of Alzheimer's Disease (AD), and evaluated it with real-world datasets. For each task, one of our models achieves the highest accuracy and good precision and recall for all classes compared to common machine learning models. Moreover, we study how to formalize argumentation dialogues that give contrastive, focused and selected explanations for the most preferred decisions selected in given contexts.

Low production and over-exploitation of natural resources often characterize smallholder farms. Extreme and unpredictable weather conditions, soil and land degradation, and lack of farm inputs are some of the underlying factors for this. The recent pandemic (COVID-19) and, in quite a few places, political instability have also exacerbated the poor production of these farms. Farming is a complex activity that relies on multiple intertwined factors, and understanding these at the base level is essential to improve productivity. This calls for extensive resources so a reliable and (near) real-time farm monitoring system can be constructed, which is beyond the capability of most smallholder communities.<br/>This thesis addresses the pressing challenges of food insecurity and limited agricultural data in smallholder farming systems, with a focus on northern Ethiopia. It demonstrates the feasibility of integrating inclusive technology and advanced data analytics to support data-driven agricultural decision-making at the farm level. The work began by establishing a modular, spatiotemporal data acquisition infrastructure<br/>that uses a wireless sensor network, citizen-generated data, and remote sensing data.<br/>Through appropriate preprocessing and spatiotemporal resampling, these heterogeneous data sources were downscaled to farm resolution and allowed to build an Agriculture data cube (ADC) that enables granular insights. This ADC served as the foundation for a knowledge base and inference models. Specifically, a data-driven Decision Support System (DSS) was implemented that integrates fuzzy logic, machine learning, and association rule mining to infer farmlevel information such as seasonal yield and farm health. The study highlighted the importance of farm management, topography, and soil properties in predicting seasonal productivity. These models were evaluated against real and synthetic data and validated using expert input.<br/>A core innovation of the work lies in the construction of a reliable, non-intrusive, and affordable farm-level monitoring system through low-cost IoT-WSN devices and a participatory citizen science approach. This design promotes local engagement, which particularly involves youth and women, and supports continuous data col-lection with minimal technical barriers. These efforts allow farmers to understand the link between their management practice and expected yield, and fosters proactive, evidence-based decision-making.<br/>Although the lack of widespread farm-level validation data posed a limitation, comparisons with existing datasets suggest reasonable<br/>accuracy. The data-driven knowledge base developed in this thesis helps to address the shortage of field experts and offers scalable support for smallholder agriculture. With further refinement, particularly by incorporating more diverse training data and broader expert validation, this framework can be adapted to other regions and scaled to support decisions at zonal, regional, or national levels.

We describe techniques for combining two types of knowledge systems: expert and machine learning. Both the expert system and the learning system represent information by logical decision rules or trees. Unlike the classical views of knowledge-base evaluation or refinement, our view accepts the contents of the knowledge base as completely correct. The knowledge base and the results of its stored cases will provide direction for the discovery of new relationships in the form of newly induced decision rules. An expert system called SEAS was built to discover sales leads for computer products and solutions. The system interviews executives by asking questions, and based on the responses, recommends products that may improve a business' operations. Leveraging this expert system, we record the results of the interviews and the program's recommendations. The very same data stored by the expert system is used to find new predictive rules. Among the potential advantages of this approach are (a) the capability to spot new sales trends and (b) the substitution of less expensive probabilistic rules that use database data instead of interviews.

We develop a method of reasoning using an incrementally constructed bipolar argumentation framework (BAF) aiming to apply computational argumentation to legal reasoning. A BAF that explains the judgment of a certain case is constructed based on the user’s knowledge and recognition. More specifically, a set of effective laws are derived as the conclusions from evidential facts recognized by the user, in a bottom-up manner; conversely, the evidences required to derive a new conclusion are identified if certain conditions are added, in a top-down manner. The BAF is incrementally constructed by repeated exercise of this bidirectional reasoning. The method provides support for those who are not familiar with the law, so that they can understand the judgment process and identify strategies that might allow them to win their case.

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.