TruthSplit: Operationalizing Conditional Validity in Arguments Through Multi-Perspective Reasoning
Authors: Benjamin Stieger, Maximilian Terberger, Thomas Huber, Christina Niklaus
Organizations: University of St. Gallen
Abstract
We present TruthSplit, an interactive system for multi-perspective argument analysis. Existing argumentation tools typically analyze properties of the argument itself, such as structure, quality, stance, or persuasiveness, while leaving perspective-specific background knowledge implicit. TruthSplit addresses this gap by supporting an exploratory analysis of how the same claim can lead to different conclusions when interpreted through worldview-specific values, assumptions, and conceptual definitions. We refer to this perspective-dependent analysis as conditional validity. Given an input argumentative text, TruthSplit extracts claims and premises, applies a three-layer natural language inference (NLI) approach to assess both logical and worldview-specific normative consistency, and conditions large language model (LLM) reasoning on structured worldview profiles that encode core values and decision principles. The system then generates perspective-specific interpretations, identifies value conflicts and assumption gaps, and visualizes divergence through interactive analytical interfaces.
This work proposes novel splitting techniques for argumentation formalisms that incorporate supports between defeasible elements. We base our studies on bipolar set-based argumentation frameworks (BSAFs) which generalize argumentation frameworks with collective attacks (SETAFs), as well as bipolar argumentation frameworks (BAFs), by incorporating both collective attacks and supports. Notably, BSAFs establish a crucial link to structured argumentation as they naturally capture general (potentially non-flat) assumption-based argumentation. The increase in expressiveness calls for diverse forms of splitting. We consider splits over collective attacks (thereby generalizing the recently proposed splitting techniques for SETAFs), splits over collective supports, as well as splits over both collective attacks and supports. We establish suitable splitting schemata and prove their correctness for the most common argumentation semantics.
Matti Berthold, Lydia Blümel, Giovanni Buraglio +1
We introduce notions of safety, liveness, and fairness, as commonly used in temporal reasoning, to quantitative (bipolar) argumentation dialogues where repeated inferences are drawn from argumentation graphs with weighted nodes. Between inferences, these graphs undergo updates. Strong and weak safety capture that arguments' (final) strengths remain above a specific threshold of justification and always reach the threshold eventually, respectively. Liveness requires that arguments' strengths fluctuate across the threshold of justification. Fairness notions assess how safe arguments are spread within a sequence of argumentation graphs. We formally show how these notions are related, and discuss some analytical challenges with respect to providing general guarantees for our properties.
The same arguments often need to be evaluated under different external regimes. An agent with influence over the regime has a strategic lever that standard formalisms do not directly capture. We introduce context-dependent argumentation frameworks (CDAFs), an extension of Dung's theory in which a defeat function determines, per context, which attacks succeed. A perspective-labeled specialisation derives the defeat function from a relevance set ρ and a priority π. The relevance set is the agent's action space. In a small worked example, the agent's target argument is rejected under every full-relevance injective priority, yet accepted under partial activations, one of which no VAF audience can mirror. We define the corresponding decision problem, ACTIVATION-MANIPULATION, and record baseline complexity bounds. Tight bounds and multi-agent variants are left open.