Kristijonas Čyras

Timotheus Kampik, Kristijonas Čyras, José Ruiz Alarcón

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.

Hasan Farooq, Julien Forgeat, Shruti Bothe et al.

The realization of data-driven AI-native architecture envisioned for 6G and beyond networks can eventually lead to multiple machine learning (ML) workloads distributed at the network edges driving downstream tasks like secondary carrier prediction, positioning, channel prediction etc. The independent life-cycle management of these edge-distributed independent multiple workloads sharing a resource-constrained compute node e.g., base station (BS) is a challenge that will scale with denser deployments. This study explores the effectiveness of multi-task learning (MTL) approaches in facilitating a general-purpose AI native Radio Access Network (RAN). The investigation focuses on four RAN tasks: (i) secondary carrier prediction, (ii) user location prediction, (iii) indoor link classification, and (iv) line-of-sight link classification. We validate the performance using realistic simulations considering multi-faceted design aspects of MTL including model architecture, loss and gradient balancing strategies, distributed learning topology, data sparsity and task groupings. The quantification and insights from simulations reveal that for the four RAN tasks considered (i) adoption of customized gate control-based expert architecture with uncertainty-based weighting makes MTL perform either best among all or at par with single task learning (STL) (ii) LoS classification task in MTL setting helps other tasks but its own performance is degraded (iii) for sparse training data, training a single global MTL model is helpful but MTL performance is on par with STL (iv) optimal set of group pairing exists for each task and (v) partial federation is much better than full model federation in MTL setting.

Antonio Rago, Kristijonas Čyras, Jack Mumford et al.

This chapter provides an overview of research works that present approaches with some degree of cross-fertilisation between Computational Argumentation and Machine Learning. Our review of the literature identified two broad themes representing the purpose of the interaction between these two areas: argumentation for machine learning and machine learning for argumentation. Across these two themes, we systematically evaluate the spectrum of works across various dimensions, including the type of learning and the form of argumentation framework used. Further, we identify three types of interaction between these two areas: synergistic approaches, where the Argumentation and Machine Learning components are tightly integrated; segmented approaches, where the two are interleaved such that the outputs of one are the inputs of the other; and approximated approaches, where one component shadows the other at a chosen level of detail. We draw conclusions about the suitability of certain forms of Argumentation for supporting certain types of Machine Learning, and vice versa, with clear patterns emerging from the review. Whilst the reviewed works provide inspiration for successfully combining the two fields of research, we also identify and discuss limitations and challenges that ought to be addressed in order to ensure that they remain a fruitful pairing as AI advances.

Timotheus Kampik, Nico Potyka, Xiang Yin et al.

We present a principle-based analysis of contribution functions for quantitative bipolar argumentation graphs that quantify the contribution of one argument to another. The introduced principles formalise the intuitions underlying different contribution functions as well as expectations one would have regarding the behaviour of contribution functions in general. As none of the covered contribution functions satisfies all principles, our analysis can serve as a tool that enables the selection of the most suitable function based on the requirements of a given use case.

Kristijonas Čyras, Antonio Rago, Emanuele Albini et al.

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.

Kristijonas Cyras, Ramamurthy Badrinath, Swarup Kumar Mohalik et al.

As a field of AI, Machine Reasoning (MR) uses largely symbolic means to formalize and emulate abstract reasoning. Studies in early MR have notably started inquiries into Explainable AI (XAI) -- arguably one of the biggest concerns today for the AI community. Work on explainable MR as well as on MR approaches to explainability in other areas of AI has continued ever since. It is especially potent in modern MR branches, such as argumentation, constraint and logic programming, planning. We hereby aim to provide a selective overview of MR explainability techniques and studies in hopes that insights from this long track of research will complement well the current XAI landscape. This document reports our work in-progress on MR explainability.

Amin Karamlou, Kristijonas Čyras, Francesca Toni

Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (BAFs) admit several interpretations of the support relation and diverging definitions of semantics. Recently, several classes of BAFs have been captured as instances of bipolar Assumption-Based Argumentation, a class of Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA). In this paper, we establish the complexity of bipolar ABA, and consequently of several classes of BAFs. In addition to the standard five complexity problems, we analyse the rarely-addressed extension enumeration problem too. We also advance backtracking-driven algorithms for enumerating extensions of bipolar ABA frameworks, and consequently of BAFs under several interpretations. We prove soundness and completeness of our algorithms, describe their implementation and provide a scalability evaluation. We thus contribute to the study of the as yet uninvestigated complexity problems of (variously interpreted) BAFs as well as of bipolar ABA, and provide the lacking implementations thereof.

Kristijonas Čyras, Tiago Oliveira

Automatically reasoning with conflicting generic clinical guidelines is a burning issue in patient-centric medical reasoning where patient-specific conditions and goals need to be taken into account. It is even more challenging in the presence of preferences such as patient's wishes and clinician's priorities over goals. We advance a structured argumentation formalism for reasoning with conflicting clinical guidelines, patient-specific information and preferences. Our formalism integrates assumption-based reasoning and goal-driven selection among reasoning outcomes. Specifically, we assume applicability of guideline recommendations concerning the generic goal of patient well-being, resolve conflicts among recommendations using patient's conditions and preferences, and then consider prioritised patient-centered goals to yield non-conflicting, goal-maximising and preference-respecting recommendations. We rely on the state-of-the-art Transition-based Medical Recommendation model for representing guideline recommendations and augment it with context given by the patient's conditions, goals, as well as preferences over recommendations and goals. We establish desirable properties of our approach in terms of sensitivity to recommendation conflicts and patient context.

Kristijonas Čyras, Dimitrios Letsios, Ruth Misener et al.

Mathematical optimization offers highly-effective tools for finding solutions for problems with well-defined goals, notably scheduling. However, optimization solvers are often unexplainable black boxes whose solutions are inaccessible to users and which users cannot interact with. We define a novel paradigm using argumentation to empower the interaction between optimization solvers and users, supported by tractable explanations which certify or refute solutions. A solution can be from a solver or of interest to a user (in the context of 'what-if' scenarios). Specifically, we define argumentative and natural language explanations for why a schedule is (not) feasible, (not) efficient or (not) satisfying fixed user decisions, based on models of the fundamental makespan scheduling problem in terms of abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). We define three types of AFs, whose stable extensions are in one-to-one correspondence with schedules that are feasible, efficient and satisfying fixed decisions, respectively. We extract the argumentative explanations from these AFs and the natural language explanations from the argumentative ones.

Kristijonas Čyras, Francesca Toni

We present ABA+, a new approach to handling preferences in a well known structured argumentation formalism, Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA). In ABA+, preference information given over assumptions is incorporated directly into the attack relation, thus resulting in attack reversal. ABA+ conservatively extends ABA and exhibits various desirable features regarding relationship among argumentation semantics as well as preference handling. We also introduce Weak Contraposition, a principle concerning reasoning with rules and preferences that relaxes the standard principle of contraposition, while guaranteeing additional desirable features for ABA+.

Kristijonas Cyras, Francesca Toni

We investigate properties of ABA+, a formalism that extends the well studied structured argumentation formalism Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) with a preference handling mechanism. In particular, we establish desirable properties that ABA+ semantics exhibit. These pave way to the satisfaction by ABA+ of some (arguably) desirable principles of preference handling in argumentation and nonmonotonic reasoning, as well as non-monotonic inference properties of ABA+ under various semantics.