Argumentation in artificial intelligence

AI-readiness for Biomedical Data: Bridge2AI Recommendations

Biomedical research and clinical practice are in the midst of a transition toward significantly increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) methods. These advances promise to enable qualitatively deeper insight into complex challenges formerly beyond the reach of analytic methods and human intuition while placing increased demands on ethical and explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), given the opaque nature of many deep learning methods. The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has initiated a significant research and development program, Bridge2AI, aimed at producing new "flagship" datasets designed to support AI/ML analysis of complex biomedical challenges, elucidate best practices, develop tools and standards in AI/ML data science, and disseminate these datasets, tools, and methods broadly to the biomedical community. An essential set of concepts to be developed and disseminated in this program along with the data and tools produced are criteria for AI-readiness of data, including critical considerations for XAI and ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of AI technologies. NIH Bridge to Artificial Intelligence (Bridge2AI) Standards Working Group members prepared this article to present methods for assessing the AI-readiness of biomedical data and the data standards perspectives and criteria we have developed throughout this program. While the field is rapidly evolving, these criteria are foundational for scientific rigor and the ethical design and application of biomedical AI methods.

Argument-based inductive logics, with coverage of compromised perception

Formal deductive logic, used to express and reason over declarative, axiomatizable content, captures, we now know, essentially all of what is known in mathematics and physics, and captures as well the details of the proofs by which such knowledge has been secured. This is certainly impressive, but deductive logic alone cannot enable rational adjudication of arguments that are at variance (however much additional information is added). After affirming a fundamental directive, according to which argumentation should be the basis for human-centric AI, we introduce and employ both a deductive and-crucially-an inductive cognitive calculus. The former cognitive calculus, DCEC , is the deductive one and is used with our automated deductive reasoner ShadowProver; the latter, IDCEC , is inductive, is used with the automated inductive reasoner ShadowAdjudicator, and is based on human-used concepts of likelihood (and in some dialects of IDCEC , probability). We explain that ShadowAdjudicator centers around the concept of competing and nuanced arguments adjudicated non-monotonically through time. We make things clearer and more concrete by way of three case studies, in which our two automated reasoners are employed. Case Study 1 involves the famous Monty Hall Problem. Case Study 2 makes vivid the efficacy of our calculi and automated reasoners in simulations that involve a cognitive robot (PERI.2). In Case Study 3, as we explain, the simulation employs the cognitive architecture ARCADIA, which is designed to computationally model human-level cognition in ways that take perception and attention seriously. We also discuss a type of argument rarely analyzed in logic-based AI; arguments intended to persuade by leveraging human deficiencies. We end by sharing thoughts about the future of research and associated engineering of the type that we have displayed.

Strength in coalitions: Community detection through argument similarity

We present a novel argumentation-based method for finding and analyzing communities in social media on the Web, where a community is regarded as a set of supported opinions that might be in conflict. Based on their stance, we identify argumentative coalitions to define them; then, we apply a similarity-based evaluation method over the set of arguments in the coalition to determine the level of cohesion inherent to each community, classifying them appropriately. Introducing conflict points and attacks between coalitions based on argumentative (dis)similarities to model the interaction between communities leads to considering a meta-argumentation framework where the set of coalitions plays the role of the set of arguments and where the attack relation between the coalitions is assigned a particular strength which is inherited from the arguments belonging to the coalition. Various semantics are introduced to consider attacks’ strength to particularize the effect of the new perspective. Finally, we analyze a case study where all the elements of the formal construction of the formalism are exercised.

EQRbot: A chatbot delivering EQR argument-based explanations

Recent years have witnessed the rise of several new argumentation-based support systems, especially in the healthcare industry. In the medical sector, it is imperative that the exchange of information occurs in a clear and accurate way, and this has to be reflected in any employed virtual systems. Argument Schemes and their critical questions represent well-suited formal tools for modeling such information and exchanges since they provide detailed templates for explanations to be delivered. This paper details the EQR argument scheme and deploys it to generate explanations for patients' treatment advice using a chatbot (EQRbot). The EQR scheme (devised as a pattern of Explanation-Question-Response interactions between agents) comprises multiple premises that can be interrogated to disclose additional data. The resulting explanations, obtained as instances of the employed argumentation reasoning engine and the EQR template, will then feed the conversational agent that will exhaustively convey the requested information and answers to follow-on users' queries as personalized Telegram messages. Comparisons with a previous baseline and existing argumentation-based chatbots illustrate the improvements yielded by EQRbot against similar conversational agents.

Probabilistic interpretations of argumentative attacks: Logical and experimental results1

We present an interdisciplinary approach to argumentation combining logical, probabilistic, and psychological perspectives. We investigate logical attack principles which relate attacks among claims with logical form. For example, we consider the principle that an argument that attacks another argument claiming A triggers the existence of an attack on an argument featuring the stronger claim A ∧ B. We formulate a number of such principles pertaining to conjunctive, disjunctive, negated, and implicational claims. Some of these attack principles seem to be prima facie more plausible than others. To support this intuition, we suggest an interpretation of these principles in terms of coherent conditional probabilities. This interpretation is naturally generalized from qualitative to quantitative principles. Specifically, we use our probabilistic semantics to evaluate the rationality of principles which govern the strength of argumentative attacks. In order to complement our theoretical analysis with an empirical perspective, we present an experiment with students of the TU Vienna ( n = 139) which explores the psychological plausibility of selected attack principles. We also discuss how our qualitative attack principles relate to well-known types of logical argumentation frameworks. Finally, we briefly discuss how our approach relates to the computational argumentation literature.

Argumentation: A calculus for Human-Centric AI

This paper aims to expose and analyze the potential foundational role of Argumentation for Human-Centric AI, and to present the main challenges for this foundational role to be realized in a way that will fit well with the wider requirements and challenges of Human-Centric AI. The central idea set forward is that by endowing machines with the ability to argue with forms of machine argumentation that are cognitively compatible with those of human argumentation, we will be able to support a naturally effective, enhancing and ethical human-machine cooperation and "social" integration.

Argumentation frameworks with necessities and their relationship with logic programs

This paper presents a comprehensive study of argumentation frameworks with necessities (AFNs), a bipolar extension of Dung Abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) where the support relation captures a positive interaction between arguments having the meaning of necessity: the acceptance of an argument may require the acceptance of other argument(s). The paper discusses new main acceptability semantics for AFNs and their characterization both by a direct approach and a labelling approach. It examines the relationship between AFNs and Dung AFs and shows the gain provided by the former in terms of concision. Finally, the paper shows how to represent an AFN as a normal logic program (LP) and vice versa and in both cases establishes a one-to-one correspondence between extensions under the main acceptability semantics (except for semi-stable semantics where the correspondence is not completely full) of an AFN and particular cases of 3-valued stable models of normal LPs.

A Hybrid Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm and Its Performance Assessment in Multi-Dimensional Symmetric Function

Ensemble learning of swarm intelligence evolutionary algorithm of artificial neural network (ANN) is one of the core research directions in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). As a representative member of swarm intelligence evolutionary algorithm, shuffled frog leaping algorithm (SFLA) has the advantages of simple structure, easy implementation, short operation time, and strong global optimization ability. However, SFLA is susceptible to fall into local optimas in the face of complex and multi-dimensional symmetric function optimization, which leads to the decline of convergence accuracy. This paper proposes an improved shuffled frog leaping algorithm of threshold oscillation based on simulated annealing (SA-TO-SFLA). In this algorithm, the threshold oscillation strategy and simulated annealing strategy are introduced into the SFLA, which makes the local search behavior more diversified and the ability to escape from the local optimas stronger. By using multi-dimensional symmetric function such as drop-wave function, Schaffer function N.2, Rastrigin function, and Griewank function, two groups (i: SFLA, SA-SFLA, TO-SFLA, and SA-TO-SFLA; ii: SFLA, ISFLA, MSFLA, DSFLA, and SA-TO-SFLA) of comparative experiments are designed to analyze the convergence accuracy and convergence time. The results show that the threshold oscillation strategy has strong robustness. Moreover, compared with SFLA, the convergence accuracy of SA-TO-SFLA algorithm is significantly improved, and the median of convergence time is greatly reduced as a whole. The convergence accuracy of SFLA algorithm on these four test functions are 90%, 100%, 78%, and 92.5%, respectively, and the median of convergence time is 63.67 s, 59.71 s, 12.93 s, and 8.74 s, respectively; The convergence accuracy of SA-TO-SFLA algorithm on these four test functions is 99%, 100%, 100%, and 97.5%, respectively, and the median of convergence time is 48.64 s, 32.07 s, 24.06 s, and 3.04 s, respectively.

FAIRSCAPE: a Framework for FAIR and Reproducible Biomedical Analytics

Results of computational analyses require transparent disclosure of their supporting resources, while the analyses themselves often can be very large scale and involve multiple processing steps separated in time. Evidence for the correctness of any analysis should include not only a textual description, but also a formal record of the computations which produced the result, including accessible data and software with runtime parameters, environment, and personnel involved. This article describes FAIRSCAPE, a reusable computational framework, enabling simplified access to modern scalable cloud-based components. FAIRSCAPE fully implements the FAIR data principles and extends them to provide fully FAIR Evidence, including machine-interpretable provenance of datasets, software and computations, as metadata for all computed results. The FAIRSCAPE microservices framework creates a complete Evidence Graph for every computational result, including persistent identifiers with metadata, resolvable to the software, computations, and datasets used in the computation; and stores a URI to the root of the graph in the result's metadata. An ontology for Evidence Graphs, EVI ( https://w3id.org/EVI ), supports inferential reasoning over the evidence. FAIRSCAPE can run nested or disjoint workflows and preserves provenance across them. It can run Apache Spark jobs, scripts, workflows, or user-supplied containers. All objects are assigned persistent IDs, including software. All results are annotated with FAIR metadata using the evidence graph model for access, validation, reproducibility, and re-use of archived data and software.

Artificial intelligence-based network traffic analysis and automatic optimization technology

Network operation and maintenance (O & M) activities of data centers focus mainly on checking the operating states of devices. O & M engineers determine how services are running and the bearing capacity of a data center by checking the operating states of devices. However, this method cannot reflect the real transmission status of business data; therefore, engineers cannot fully comprehensively perceive the overall running conditions of businesses. In this paper, ERSPAN (Encapsulated Remote Switch Port Analyzer) technology is applied to deliver stream matching rules in the forwarding path of TCP packets and mirror the TCP packets into the network O & M AI collector, which is used to conduct an in-depth analysis on the TCP packets, collect traffic statistics, recapture the forwarding path, carry out delayed computing, and identify applications. This enables O & M engineers to comprehensively perceive the service bearing status in a data center, and form a tightly coupled correlation model between networks and services through end-to-end visualized modeling, providing comprehensive technical support for data center optimization and early warning of network risks.

Argumentation and Defeasible Reasoning in the Law

Different formalisms for defeasible reasoning have been used to represent knowledge and reason in the legal field. In this work, we provide an overview of the following logic-based approaches to defeasible reasoning: defeasible logic, Answer Set Programming, ABA+, ASPIC+, and DeLP. We compare features of these approaches under three perspectives: the logical model (knowledge representation), the method (computational mechanisms), and the technology (available software resources). On top of that, two real examples in the legal domain are designed and implemented in ASPIC+ to showcase the benefit of an argumentation approach in real-world domains. The CrossJustice and Interlex projects are taken as a testbed, and experiments are conducted with the Arg2P technology.

Nobel Turing Challenge: creating the engine for scientific discovery

Scientific discovery has long been one of the central driving forces in our civilization. It uncovered the principles of the world we live in, and enabled us to invent new technologies reshaping our society, cure diseases, explore unknown new frontiers, and hopefully lead us to build a sustainable society. Accelerating the speed of scientific discovery is therefore one of the most important endeavors. This requires an in-depth understanding of not only the subject areas but also the nature of scientific discoveries themselves. In other words, the "science of science" needs to be established, and has to be implemented using artificial intelligence (AI) systems to be practically executable. At the same time, what may be implemented by "AI Scientists" may not resemble the scientific process conducted by human scientist. It may be an alternative form of science that will break the limitation of current scientific practice largely hampered by human cognitive limitation and sociological constraints. It could give rise to a human-AI hybrid form of science that shall bring systems biology and other sciences into the next stage. The Nobel Turing Challenge aims to develop a highly autonomous AI system that can perform top-level science, indistinguishable from the quality of that performed by the best human scientists, where some of the discoveries may be worthy of Nobel Prize level recognition and beyond.

RationalGRL: A framework for argumentation and goal modeling

Goal-oriented requirements modeling approaches aim to capture the intentions of the stakeholders involved in the development of an information system as goals and tasks. The process of constructing such goal models usually involves discussions between a requirements engineer and a group of stakeholders. Not all the arguments in such discussions can be captured as goals or tasks: e.g., the discussion whether to accept or reject a certain goal and the rationale for acceptance or rejection cannot be captured in goal models. In this paper, we apply techniques from computational argumentation to a goal modeling approach by using a coding analysis in which stakeholders discuss requirements for a Traffic Simulator. We combine a simplified version of a traditional goal model, the Goal-oriented Requirements Language (GRL), with ideas from argumentation on schemes for practical reasoning into a new framework (RationalGRL). RationalGRL provides a formal semantics and tool support to capture the discussions and outcomes of the argumentation process that leads to a goal model. We also define the RationalGRL development process to create a RationalGRL model.

An informant-based approach to argument strength in Defeasible Logic Programming

This work formalizes an informant-based structured argumentation approach in a multi-agent setting, where the knowledge base of an agent may include information provided by other agents, and each piece of knowledge comes attached with its informant. In that way, arguments are associated with the set of informants corresponding to the information they are built upon. Our approach proposes an informant-based notion of argument strength, where the strength of an argument is determined by the credibility of its informant agents. Moreover, we consider that the strength of an argument is not absolute, but it is relative to the resolution of the conflicts the argument is involved in. In other words, the strength of an argument may vary from one context to another, as it will be determined by comparison to its attacking arguments (respectively, the arguments it attacks). Finally, we equip agents with the means to express reasons for or against the consideration of any piece of information provided by a given informant agent. Consequently, we allow agents to argue about the arguments’ strength through the construction of arguments that challenge (respectively, defeat) or are in favour of their informant agents.

A logic of defeasible argumentation: Constructing arguments in justification logic

In the 1980s, Pollock’s work on default reasons started the quest in the AI community for a formal system of defeasible argumentation. The main goal of this paper is to provide a logic of structured defeasible arguments using the language of justification logic. In this logic, we introduce defeasible justification assertions of the type t : F that read as “t is a defeasible reason that justifies F”. Such formulas are then interpreted as arguments and their acceptance semantics is given in analogy to Dung’s abstract argumentation framework semantics. We show that a large subclass of Dung’s frameworks that we call “warranted” frameworks is a special case of our logic in the sense that (1) Dung’s frameworks can be obtained from justification logic-based theories by focusing on a single aspect of attacks among justification logic arguments and (2) Dung’s warranted frameworks always have multiple justification logic instantiations called “realizations”. We first define a new justification logic that relies on operational semantics for default logic. One of the key features that is absent in standard justification logics is the possibility to weigh different epistemic reasons or pieces of evidence that might conflict with one another. To amend this, we develop a semantics for “defeaters”: conflicting reasons forming a basis to doubt the original conclusion or to believe an opposite statement. This enables us to formalize non-monotonic justifications that prompt extension revision already for normal default theories. Then we present our logic as a system for abstract argumentation with structured arguments. The format of conflicting reasons overlaps with the idea of attacks between arguments to the extent that it is possible to define all the standard notions of argumentation framework extensions. Using the definitions of extensions, we establish formal correspondence between Dung’s original argumentation semantics and our operational semantics for default theories. One of the results shows that the notorious attack cycles from abstract argumentation cannot always be realized as justification logic default theories.

Correcting the Brain? The Convergence of Neuroscience, Neurotechnology, Psychiatry, and Artificial Intelligence

The incorporation of neural-based technologies into psychiatry offers novel means to use neural data in patient assessment and clinical diagnosis. However, an over-optimistic technologisation of neuroscientifically-informed psychiatry risks the conflation of technological and psychological norms. Neurotechnologies promise fast, efficient, broad psychiatric insights not readily available through conventional observation of patients. Recording and processing brain signals provides information from 'beneath the skull' that can be interpreted as an account of neural processing and that can provide a basis to evaluate general behaviour and functioning. But it ought not to be forgotten that the use of such technologies is part of a human practice of neuroscience informed psychiatry. This paper notes some challenges in the integration of neural technologies into psychiatry and suggests vigilance particularly in respect to normative challenges. In this way, psychiatry can avoid a drift toward reductive technological approaches, while nonetheless benefitting from promising advances in neuroscience and technology.

Neural-Symbolic Argumentation Mining: An Argument in Favor of Deep Learning and Reasoning

Deep learning is bringing remarkable contributions to the field of argumentation mining, but the existing approaches still need to fill the gap toward performing advanced reasoning tasks. In this position paper, we posit that neural-symbolic and statistical relational learning could play a crucial role in the integration of symbolic and sub-symbolic methods to achieve this goal.

The Hybrid Theory of Stories and Arguments Applied to the Simonshaven Case

This paper presents the hybrid theory of stories and arguments for reasoning with evidence in legal cases and applies this theory to the Simonshaven case. In the hybrid theory, alternative hypothetical stories about “what happened” in a case are constructed and discussed in a dialectical process of argument and counterargument. After informally explaining stories, arguments, and the ways in which they interact, this paper gives a method for rational proof based on critical questions and shows how this method can be used in the Simonshaven case.

Bex analyzes the case with an informal version of his hybrid theory, which combines scenario construction and argumentation. Arguments based on evidence can be used to reason about alternative scenarios. Bex claims that his hybrid theory provides the best of both worlds by combining cognitively feasible story‐based reasoning with more detailed rational argumentation. However, like the argument‐based approach, the hybrid theory does not provide a systematic account of uncertainty.

An Integrated Framework Combining Multiple Human Activity Features for Land Use Classification

Urban land use information is critical to urban planning, but the increasing complexity of urban systems makes the accurate classification of land use extremely challenging. Human activity features extracted from big data have been used for land use classification, and fusing different features can help improve the classification. In this paper, we propose a framework to integrate multiple human activity features for land use classification. Features were fused by constructing a membership matrix reflecting the fuzzy relationship between features and land use types using the fuzzy c-means (FCM) clustering method. The classification results were obtained by the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE) method, which regards the membership matrix as the fuzzy evaluation matrix. This framework was applied to a case study using taxi trajectory data from Nanjing, and the outflow, inflow, net flow and net flow ratio features were extracted. A series of experiments demonstrated that the proposed framework can effectively fuse different features and increase the accuracy of land use classification. The classification accuracy achieved 0.858 (Kappa = 0.810) when the four features were fused for land use classification.