Can Large Language Models perform Relation-based Argument Mining?

Argument mining (AM) is the process of automatically extracting arguments, their components and/or relations amongst arguments and components from text. As the number of platforms supporting online debate increases, the need for AM becomes ever more urgent, especially in support of downstream tasks. Relation-based AM (RbAM) is a form of AM focusing on identifying agreement (support) and disagreement (attack) relations amongst arguments. RbAM is a challenging classification task, with existing methods failing to perform satisfactorily. In this paper, we show that general-purpose Large Language Models (LLMs), appropriately primed and prompted, can significantly outperform the best performing (RoBERTa-based) baseline. Specifically, we experiment with two open-source LLMs (Llama-2 and Mistral) with ten datasets.

Robust Counterfactual Explanations in Machine Learning: A Survey

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) are advocated as being ideally suited to providing algorithmic recourse for subjects affected by the predictions of machine learning models. While CEs can be beneficial to affected individuals, recent work has exposed severe issues related to the robustness of state-of-the-art methods for obtaining CEs. Since a lack of robustness may compromise the validity of CEs, techniques to mitigate this risk are in order. In this survey, we review works in the rapidly growing area of robust CEs and perform an in-depth analysis of the forms of robustness they consider. We also discuss existing solutions and their limitations, providing a solid foundation for future developments.

Recourse under Model Multiplicity via Argumentative Ensembling (Technical Report)

Model Multiplicity (MM) arises when multiple, equally performing machine learning models can be trained to solve the same prediction task. Recent studies show that models obtained under MM may produce inconsistent predictions for the same input. When this occurs, it becomes challenging to provide counterfactual explanations (CEs), a common means for offering recourse recommendations to individuals negatively affected by models' predictions. In this paper, we formalise this problem, which we name recourse-aware ensembling, and identify several desirable properties which methods for solving it should satisfy. We show that existing ensembling methods, naturally extended in different ways to provide CEs, fail to satisfy these properties. We then introduce argumentative ensembling, deploying computational argumentation to guarantee robustness of CEs to MM, while also accommodating customisable user preferences. We show theoretically and experimentally that argumentative ensembling satisfies properties which the existing methods lack, and that the trade-offs are minimal wrt accuracy.

Recourse under Model Multiplicity via Argumentative Ensembling

Model Multiplicity (MM) arises when multiple, equally performing machine learning models can be trained to solve the same prediction task. Recent studies show that models obtained under MM may produce inconsistent predictions for the same input. When this occurs, it becomes challenging to provide counterfactual explanations (CEs), a common means for offering recourse recommendations to individuals negatively affected by models' predictions. In this paper, we formalise this problem, which we name recourse-aware ensembling, and identify several desirable properties which methods for solving it should satisfy. We show that existing ensembling methods, naturally extended in different ways to provide CEs, fail to satisfy these properties. We then introduce argumentative ensembling, deploying computational argumentation to guarantee robustness of CEs to MM, while also accommodating customisable user preferences. We show theoretically and experimentally that argumentative ensembling satisfies properties which the existing methods lack, and that the trade-offs are minimal wrt accuracy.

Provably Robust and Plausible Counterfactual Explanations for Neural Networks via Robust Optimisation

Counterfactual Explanations (CEs) have received increasing interest as a major methodology for explaining neural network classifiers. Usually, CEs for an input-output pair are defined as data points with minimum distance to the input that are classified with a different label than the output. To tackle the established problem that CEs are easily invalidated when model parameters are updated (e.g. retrained), studies have proposed ways to certify the robustness of CEs under model parameter changes bounded by a norm ball. However, existing methods targeting this form of robustness are not sound or complete, and they may generate implausible CEs, i.e., outliers wrt the training dataset. In fact, no existing method simultaneously optimises for proximity and plausibility while preserving robustness guarantees. In this work, we propose Provably RObust and PLAusible Counterfactual Explanations (PROPLACE), a method leveraging on robust optimisation techniques to address the aforementioned limitations in the literature. We formulate an iterative algorithm to compute provably robust CEs and prove its convergence, soundness and completeness. Through a comparative experiment involving six baselines, five of which target robustness, we show that PROPLACE achieves state-of-the-art performances against metrics on three evaluation aspects.

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.

Formalising the Robustness of Counterfactual Explanations for Neural Networks

The use of counterfactual explanations (CFXs) is an increasingly popular explanation strategy for machine learning models. However, recent studies have shown that these explanations may not be robust to changes in the underlying model (e.g., following retraining), which raises questions about their reliability in real-world applications. Existing attempts towards solving this problem are heuristic, and the robustness to model changes of the resulting CFXs is evaluated with only a small number of retrained models, failing to provide exhaustive guarantees. To remedy this, we propose the first notion to formally and deterministically assess the robustness (to model changes) of CFXs for neural networks, that we call {\Delta}-robustness. We introduce an abstraction framework based on interval neural networks to verify the {\Delta}-robustness of CFXs against a possibly infinite set of changes to the model parameters, i.e., weights and biases. We then demonstrate the utility of this approach in two distinct ways. First, we analyse the {\Delta}-robustness of a number of CFX generation methods from the literature and show that they unanimously host significant deficiencies in this regard. Second, we demonstrate how embedding {\Delta}-robustness within existing methods can provide CFXs which are provably robust.

Forecasting Argumentation Frameworks

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 a political 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.

Explaining Causal Models with Argumentation: the Case of Bi-variate Reinforcement

Causal models are playing an increasingly important role in machine learning, particularly in the realm of explainable AI. We introduce a conceptualisation for generating argumentation frameworks (AFs) from causal models for the purpose of forging explanations for the models' outputs. The conceptualisation is based on reinterpreting desirable properties of semantics of AFs as explanation moulds, which are means for characterising the relations in the causal model argumentatively. We demonstrate our methodology by reinterpreting the property of bi-variate reinforcement as an explanation mould to forge bipolar AFs as explanations for the outputs of causal models. We perform a theoretical evaluation of these argumentative explanations, examining whether they satisfy a range of desirable explanatory and argumentative properties.

Argumentative XAI: A Survey

Explainable AI (XAI) has been investigated for decades and, together with AI itself, has witnessed unprecedented growth in recent years. Among various approaches to XAI, argumentative models have been advocated in both the AI and social science literature, as their dialectical nature appears to match some basic desirable features of the explanation activity. In this survey we overview XAI approaches built using methods from the field of computational argumentation, leveraging its wide array of reasoning abstractions and explanation delivery methods. We overview the literature focusing on different types of explanation (intrinsic and post-hoc), different models with which argumentation-based explanations are deployed, different forms of delivery, and different argumentation frameworks they use. We also lay out a roadmap for future work.