With the exponential growth of time series data across diverse domains, there is a pressing need for effective analysis tools. Time series clustering is important for identifying patterns in these datasets. However, prevailing methods often encounter obstacles in maintaining data relationships and ensuring interpretability. We present Graphint, an innovative system based on the $k$-Graph methodology that addresses these challenges. Graphint integrates a robust time series clustering algorithm with an interactive tool for comparison and interpretation. More precisely, our system allows users to compare results against competing approaches, identify discriminative subsequences within specified datasets, and visualize the critical information utilized by $k$-Graph to generate outputs. Overall, Graphint offers a comprehensive solution for extracting actionable insights from complex temporal datasets.

Time series clustering poses a significant challenge with diverse applications across domains. A prominent drawback of existing solutions lies in their limited interpretability, often confined to presenting users with centroids. In addressing this gap, our work presents $k$-Graph, an unsupervised method explicitly crafted to augment interpretability in time series clustering. Leveraging a graph representation of time series subsequences, $k$-Graph constructs multiple graph representations based on different subsequence lengths. This feature accommodates variable-length time series without requiring users to predetermine subsequence lengths. Our experimental results reveal that $k$-Graph outperforms current state-of-the-art time series clustering algorithms in accuracy, while providing users with meaningful explanations and interpretations of the clustering outcomes.

In recent years, there has been a lot of research in artificial intelligence, focusing on leveraging argumentation theory for non-monotonic reasoning [1, 2]. Starting with Dung's seminal work [3], many researchers have considered abstract argumentation frameworks, composed of a set of arguments and a binary attack relation between them, and created many semantics for tasks such as computing accepted sets of arguments [4, 5] or rank arguments [6, 7, 8]. This abstract argumentation framework was extended with many features such as supports [9, 10, 11], sets of attacking arguments [12, 13], or probabilities [14] among others. However, one important question that remained was: "Where do argumentation frameworks come from in real-life settings?". While there are some pieces of evidence that the fundamental aspects of abstract argumentation frameworks have links with human reasoning [15, 16], humans debates or natural language texts are not always written as arguments and the relation between arguments is not always clear, even for experts [17]. The question of the origin of argumentation frameworks is crucial to facilitate the application of argumentation theory semantics in real-world contexts.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have taken Knowledge Representation -- and the world -- by storm. This inflection point marks a shift from explicit knowledge representation to a renewed focus on the hybrid representation of both explicit knowledge and parametric knowledge. In this position paper, we will discuss some of the common debate points within the community on LLMs (parametric knowledge) and Knowledge Graphs (explicit knowledge) and speculate on opportunities and visions that the renewed focus brings, as well as related research topics and challenges.