Deniz Gorur

Deniz Gorur, Antonio Rago, Francesca Toni

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.

Gabriel Freedman, Adam Dejl, Deniz Gorur et al.

The profusion of knowledge encoded in large language models (LLMs) and their ability to apply this knowledge zero-shot in a range of settings makes them promising candidates for use in decision-making. However, they are currently limited by their inability to provide outputs which can be faithfully explained and effectively contested to correct mistakes. In this paper, we attempt to reconcile these strengths and weaknesses by introducing \emph{argumentative LLMs (ArgLLMs)}, a method for augmenting LLMs with argumentative reasoning. Concretely, ArgLLMs construct argumentation frameworks, which then serve as the basis for formal reasoning in support of decision-making. The interpretable nature of these argumentation frameworks and formal reasoning means that any decision made by ArgLLMs may be explained and contested. We evaluate ArgLLMs' performance experimentally in comparison with state-of-the-art techniques, in the context of the decision-making task of claim verification. We also define novel properties to characterise contestability and assess ArgLLMs formally in terms of these properties.

Francesco Leofante, Hamed Ayoobi, Adam Dejl et al.

AI has become pervasive in recent years, but state-of-the-art approaches predominantly neglect the need for AI systems to be contestable. Instead, contestability is advocated by AI guidelines (e.g. by the OECD) and regulation of automated decision-making (e.g. GDPR). In this position paper we explore how contestability can be achieved computationally in and for AI. We argue that contestable AI requires dynamic (human-machine and/or machine-machine) explainability and decision-making processes, whereby machines can (i) interact with humans and/or other machines to progressively explain their outputs and/or their reasoning as well as assess grounds for contestation provided by these humans and/or other machines, and (ii) revise their decision-making processes to redress any issues successfully raised during contestation. Given that much of the current AI landscape is tailored to static AIs, the need to accommodate contestability will require a radical rethinking, that, we argue, computational argumentation is ideally suited to support.

Deniz Gorur, Antonio Rago, Francesca Toni

Judgmental forecasting employs human opinions to make predictions about future events, rather than exclusively historical data as in quantitative forecasting. When these opinions form an argumentative structure around forecasts, it is useful to study the properties of the forecasts from an argumentative perspective. In this paper, we advocate and formally define a property of argumentative coherence, which, in essence, requires that a forecaster's reasoning is coherent with their forecast. We then conduct three evaluations with our notion of coherence. First, we assess the impact of enforcing coherence on human forecasters as well as on Large Language Model (LLM)-based forecasters, given that they have recently shown to be competitive with human forecasters. In both cases, we show that filtering out incoherent predictions improves forecasting accuracy consistently, supporting the practical value of coherence in both human and LLM-based forecasting. Then, via crowd-sourced user experiments, we show that, despite its apparent intuitiveness and usefulness, users do not generally align with this coherence property. This points to the need to integrate, within argumentation-based judgmental forecasting, mechanisms to filter out incoherent opinions before obtaining group forecasting predictions.

Deniz Gorur, Antonio Rago, Francesca Toni

Judgmental forecasting is the task of making predictions about future events based on human judgment. This task can be seen as a form of claim verification, where the claim corresponds to a future event and the task is to assess the plausibility of that event. In this paper, we propose a novel multi-agent framework for claim verification, whereby different agents may disagree on claim veracity and bring specific evidence for and against the claims, represented as quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks (QBAFs). We then instantiate the framework for supporting claim verification, with a variety of agents realised with Large Language Models (LLMs): (1) ArgLLM agents, an existing approach for claim verification that generates and evaluates QBAFs; (2) RbAM agents, whereby LLM-empowered Relation-based Argument Mining (RbAM) from external sources is used to generate QBAFs; (3) RAG-ArgLLM agents, extending ArgLLM agents with a form of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) of arguments from external sources. Finally, we conduct experiments with two standard judgmental forecasting datasets, with instances of our framework with two or three agents, empowered by six different base LLMs. We observe that combining evidence from agents can improve forecasting accuracy, especially in the case of three agents, while providing an explainable combination of evidence for claim verification.