Explaining Arguments' Strength: Unveiling the Role of Attacks and Supports (Technical Report)
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the role of attacks and supports in explaining the strength of arguments.
- The authors investigate how the presence and nature of attacks and supports impact the perceived strength of arguments.
- They propose a framework to analyze the relationship between attacks, supports, and argument strength.
Plain English Explanation
This paper examines how the strength of an argument is affected by the way it is attacked or supported. The researchers wanted to understand how the presence and characteristics of attacks and supports influence how convincing an argument is perceived to be.
They developed a framework to analyze the connection between attacks, supports, and the overall strength of an argument. This framework can help us better understand how the structure and presentation of an argument impacts its persuasiveness.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a framework for analyzing the relationship between attacks, supports, and the perceived strength of arguments. The authors conducted experiments to investigate how the presence and nature of attacks and supports affect argument strength.
They modeled arguments as networks, where nodes represent claims and edges represent attacks or supports between claims. The researchers then analyzed how properties of these argument networks, such as the number, strength, and types of attacks and supports, influence the overall strength of the argument.
The experimental results provide insights into how different attack and support patterns impact the assessment of argument strength. The authors found that the balance and interplay between attacks and supports are key factors in determining how convincing an argument is perceived to be.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a valuable contribution to our understanding of how the structure of arguments influences their persuasiveness. By modeling arguments as networks and examining the role of attacks and supports, the authors offer a systematic approach to analyzing argument strength.
However, the study has some limitations. The experiments were conducted in a controlled setting, and it is unclear how well the findings would generalize to real-world argumentation scenarios. Additionally, the framework does not consider other factors that may influence argument strength, such as the credibility of the source or the emotional appeal of the claims.
Further research could explore the application of this framework in more complex, real-world contexts. Investigating how other factors, such as personal biases or domain knowledge, interact with the attack and support dynamics would also be a valuable avenue for exploration.
Conclusion
This paper presents a framework for understanding how the presence and nature of attacks and supports shape the perceived strength of arguments. The experimental findings provide insights into the interplay between these factors and offer a structured approach to analyzing argument persuasiveness.
The research highlights the importance of considering the structure and composition of arguments when evaluating their strength. This knowledge can have implications for various domains, such as decision-making, policy debates, and the design of argumentation-based systems.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Explaining Arguments' Strength: Unveiling the Role of Attacks and Supports (Technical Report)
Xiang Yin, Potyka Nico, Francesca Toni
Quantitatively explaining the strength of arguments under gradual semantics has recently received increasing attention. Specifically, several works in the literature provide quantitative explanations by computing the attribution scores of arguments. These works disregard the importance of attacks and supports, even though they play an essential role when explaining arguments' strength. In this paper, we propose a novel theory of Relation Attribution Explanations (RAEs), adapting Shapley values from game theory to offer fine-grained insights into the role of attacks and supports in quantitative bipolar argumentation towards obtaining the arguments' strength. We show that RAEs satisfy several desirable properties. We also propose a probabilistic algorithm to approximate RAEs efficiently. Finally, we show the application value of RAEs in fraud detection and large language models case studies.
Read more5/13/2024
0
Applying Attribution Explanations in Truth-Discovery Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks
Xiang Yin, Nico Potyka, Francesca Toni
Explaining the strength of arguments under gradual semantics is receiving increasing attention. For example, various studies in the literature offer explanations by computing the attribution scores of arguments or edges in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs). These explanations, known as Argument Attribution Explanations (AAEs) and Relation Attribution Explanations (RAEs), commonly employ removal-based and Shapley-based techniques for computing the attribution scores. While AAEs and RAEs have proven useful in several applications with acyclic QBAFs, they remain largely unexplored for cyclic QBAFs. Furthermore, existing applications tend to focus solely on either AAEs or RAEs, but do not compare them directly. In this paper, we apply both AAEs and RAEs, to Truth Discovery QBAFs (TD-QBAFs), which assess the trustworthiness of sources (e.g., websites) and their claims (e.g., the severity of a virus), and feature complex cycles. We find that both AAEs and RAEs can provide interesting explanations and can give non-trivial and surprising insights.
Read more9/10/2024
0
CE-QArg: Counterfactual Explanations for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (Technical Report)
Xiang Yin, Nico Potyka, Francesca Toni
There is a growing interest in understanding arguments' strength in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs). Most existing studies focus on attribution-based methods that explain an argument's strength by assigning importance scores to other arguments but fail to explain how to change the current strength to a desired one. To solve this issue, we introduce counterfactual explanations for QBAFs. We discuss problem variants and propose an iterative algorithm named Counterfactual Explanations for Quantitative bipolar Argumentation frameworks (CE-QArg). CE-QArg can identify valid and cost-effective counterfactual explanations based on two core modules, polarity and priority, which help determine the updating direction and magnitude for each argument, respectively. We discuss some formal properties of our counterfactual explanations and empirically evaluate CE-QArg on randomly generated QBAFs.
Read more7/12/2024
0
Adversarial Attack for Explanation Robustness of Rationalization Models
Yuankai Zhang, Lingxiao Kong, Haozhao Wang, Ruixuan Li, Jun Wang, Yuhua Li, Wei Liu
Rationalization models, which select a subset of input text as rationale-crucial for humans to understand and trust predictions-have recently emerged as a prominent research area in eXplainable Artificial Intelligence. However, most of previous studies mainly focus on improving the quality of the rationale, ignoring its robustness to malicious attack. Specifically, whether the rationalization models can still generate high-quality rationale under the adversarial attack remains unknown. To explore this, this paper proposes UAT2E, which aims to undermine the explainability of rationalization models without altering their predictions, thereby eliciting distrust in these models from human users. UAT2E employs the gradient-based search on triggers and then inserts them into the original input to conduct both the non-target and target attack. Experimental results on five datasets reveal the vulnerability of rationalization models in terms of explanation, where they tend to select more meaningless tokens under attacks. Based on this, we make a series of recommendations for improving rationalization models in terms of explanation.
Read more8/21/2024