From User Preferences to Base Score Extraction Functions in Gradual Argumentation (with Appendix)

Gradual argumentation is a field of symbolic AI which is attracting attention for its ability to support transparent and contestable AI systems. It is considered a useful tool in domains such as decision-making, recommendation, debate analysis, and others. The outcomes in such domains are usually dependent on the arguments' base scores, which must be selected carefully. Often, this selection process requires user expertise and may not always be straightforward. On the other hand, organising the arguments by preference could simplify the task. In this work, we introduce \emph{Base Score Extraction Functions}, which provide a mapping from users' preferences over arguments to base scores. These functions can be applied to the arguments of a \emph{Bipolar Argumentation Framework} (BAF), supplemented with preferences, to obtain a \emph{Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework} (QBAF), allowing the use of well-established computational tools in gradual argumentation. We outline the desirable properties of base score extraction functions, discuss some design choices, and provide an algorithm for base score extraction. Our method incorporates an approximation of non-linearities in human preferences to allow for better approximation of the real ones. Finally, we evaluate our approach both theoretically and experimentally in a robotics setting, and offer recommendations for selecting appropriate gradual semantics in practice.

Multi-User Personalisation in Human-Robot Interaction: Using Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks for Preferences Conflict Resolution

While personalisation in Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) has advanced significantly, most existing approaches focus on single-user adaptation, overlooking scenarios involving multiple stakeholders with potentially conflicting preferences. To address this, we propose the Multi-User Preferences Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework (MUP-QBAF), a novel multi-user personalisation framework based on Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs) that explicitly models and resolves multi-user preference conflicts. Unlike prior work in Argumentation Frameworks, which typically assumes static inputs, our approach is tailored to robotics: it incorporates both users' arguments and the robot's dynamic observations of the environment, allowing the system to adapt over time and respond to changing contexts. Preferences, both positive and negative, are represented as arguments whose strength is recalculated iteratively based on new information. The framework's properties and capabilities are presented and validated through a realistic case study, where an assistive robot mediates between the conflicting preferences of a caregiver and a care recipient during a frailty assessment task. This evaluation further includes a sensitivity analysis of argument base scores, demonstrating how preference outcomes can be shaped by user input and contextual observations. By offering a transparent, structured, and context-sensitive approach to resolving competing user preferences, this work advances the field of multi-user HRI. It provides a principled alternative to data-driven methods, enabling robots to navigate conflicts in real-world environments.