Abstract Argumentation

Argumentation skills are an essential toolkit for large language models (LLMs). These skills are crucial in various use cases, including self-reflection, debating collaboratively for diverse answers, and countering hate speech. In this paper, we create the first benchmark for a standardized evaluation of LLM-based approaches to computational argumentation, encompassing 33 datasets from previous work in unified form. Using the benchmark, we evaluate the generalizability of five LLM families across 46 computational argumentation tasks that cover mining arguments, assessing perspectives, assessing argument quality, reasoning about arguments, and generating arguments. On the benchmark, we conduct an extensive systematic analysis of the contribution of few-shot examples, reasoning steps, model size, and training skills to the performance of LLMs on the computational argumentation tasks in the benchmark.

The proliferation of online debate platforms and social media has led to an unprecedented volume of argumentative content on controversial topics from multiple perspectives. While this wealth of perspectives offers opportunities for developing critical thinking and breaking filter bubbles (Pariser 2011), the sheer volume and complexity of arguments make it challenging for readers to synthesize and comprehend diverse viewpoints effectively. We present an unsupervised graph-based approach for community-based argument organization that helps users navigate and understand complex argumentative landscapes. Our system analyzes collections of topic-focused articles and constructs a rich interaction graph by capturing multiple relationship types between arguments: topic similarity, semantic coherence, shared keywords, and common entities. We then employ community detection to identify argument communities that reveal homogeneous and heterogeneous viewpoint distributions. The detected communities are simplified through strategic graph operations to present users with digestible, yet comprehensive summaries of key argumentative patterns. Our approach requires no training data and can effectively process hundreds of articles while preserving nuanced relationships between arguments. Experimental results demonstrate our system's ability to identify meaningful argument communities and present them in an interpretable manner, facilitating users' understanding of complex socio-political debates.

In this paper, we explore the issue of inconsistency handling over prioritized knowledge bases (KBs), which consist of an ontology, a set of facts, and a priority relation between conflicting facts. In the database setting, a closely related scenario has been studied and led to the definition of three different notions of optimal repairs (global, Pareto, and completion) of a prioritized inconsistent database. After transferring the notions of globally-, Pareto- and completion-optimal repairs to our setting, we study the data complexity of the core reasoning tasks: query entailment under inconsistency-tolerant semantics based upon optimal repairs, existence of a unique optimal repair, and enumeration of all optimal repairs. Our results provide a nearly complete picture of the data complexity of these tasks for ontologies formulated in common DL-Lite dialects. The second contribution of our work is to clarify the relationship between optimal repairs and different notions of extensions for (set-based) argumentation frameworks. Among our results, we show that Pareto-optimal repairs correspond precisely to stable extensions (and often also to preferred extensions), and we propose a novel semantics for prioritized KBs which is inspired by grounded extensions and enjoys favourable computational properties. Our study also yields some results of independent interest concerning preference-based argumentation frameworks.