3 citations · 7 across the 19 of their papers we have counts for
21 papers · 1 filter
Contrastive Explanations in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks
Xiang Yin, Nico Potyka, Antonio Rago +1
Argumentation frameworks are useful tools for representing and reasoning with information in a variety of settings, e.g. in supplementing AI models as they perform classification t…
A Theory of Post-hoc Debate Judgement
Xiang Yin, Adam Dejl, Antonio Rago +2
Debates have recently emerged as a useful methodology for agentic AI to improve performance as well as to aid explainability and user engagement. For example, LLM-empowered agents…
Argumentation for Common Ground: Finding Zones of Possible Agreement between Individuals in Conflict
Elisa Cavatorta, Antonio Rago
How can common ground between societies in conflict be identified when citizens' acceptability of peace agreements is shaped by contested narratives? Such acceptability is mediated…
Towards an Argumentative Foundation for Evaluative AI
Xiang Yin, Tim Miller, Nico Potyka +2
Evaluative AI (EAI) has been recently proposed as a way to support human decision-making, not by producing a single recommendation, but by presenting competing hypotheses together…
Argumentative Human-AI Decision-Making: Toward AI Agents That Reason With Us, Not For Us
Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Antonio Rago, Francesca Toni +1
Computational argumentation offers formal frameworks for transparent, verifiable reasoning but has traditionally been limited by its reliance on domain-specific information and ext…
From User Preferences to Base Score Extraction Functions in Gradual Argumentation (with Appendix)
Aniol Civit, Antonio Rago, Antonio Andriella +2
Gradual argumentation is a field of symbolic AI which is attracting attention for its ability to support transparent and contestable AI systems. It is considered a useful tool in d…