Peer review is an essential process to determine the quality of papers submitted to scientific conferences or journals. However, it is subjective and prone to biases. Several studies have been conducted to apply techniques from NLP to support peer review, but they are based on black-box techniques and their outputs are difficult to interpret and trust. In this paper, we propose a novel pipeline to support and understand the reviewing and decision-making processes of peer review: the PeerArg system combining LLMs with methods from knowledge representation. PeerArg takes in input a set of reviews for a paper and outputs the paper acceptance prediction. We evaluate the performance of the PeerArg pipeline on three different datasets, in comparison with a novel end-2-end LLM that uses few-shot learning to predict paper acceptance given reviews. The results indicate that the end-2-end LLM is capable of predicting paper acceptance from reviews, but a variant of the PeerArg pipeline outperforms this LLM.

Causal discovery amounts to unearthing causal relationships amongst features in data. It is a crucial companion to causal inference, necessary to build scientific knowledge without resorting to expensive or impossible randomised control trials. In this paper, we explore how reasoning with symbolic representations can support causal discovery. Specifically, we deploy assumption-based argumentation (ABA), a well-established and powerful knowledge representation formalism, in combination with causality theories, to learn graphs which reflect causal dependencies in the data. We prove that our method exhibits desirable properties, notably that, under natural conditions, it can retrieve ground-truth causal graphs. We also conduct experiments with an implementation of our method in answer set programming (ASP) on four datasets from standard benchmarks in causal discovery, showing that our method compares well against established baselines.

The relation between (a fragment of) assumption-based argumentation (ABA) and logic programs (LPs) under stable model semantics is well-studied. However, for obtaining this relation, the ABA framework needs to be restricted to being flat, i.e., a fragment where the (defeasible) assumptions can never be entailed, only assumed to be true or false. Here, we remove this restriction and show a correspondence between non-flat ABA and LPs with negation as failure in their head. We then extend this result to so-called set-stable ABA semantics, originally defined for the fragment of non-flat ABA called bipolar ABA. We showcase how to define set-stable semantics for LPs with negation as failure in their head and show the correspondence to set-stable ABA semantics.

Most existing computational tools for assumption-based argumentation (ABA) focus on so-called flat frameworks, disregarding the more general case. In this paper, we study an instantiation-based approach for reasoning in possibly non-flat ABA. We make use of a semantics-preserving translation between ABA and bipolar argumentation frameworks (BAFs). By utilizing compilability theory, we establish that the constructed BAFs will in general be of exponential size. In order to keep the number of arguments and computational cost low, we present three ways of identifying redundant arguments. Moreover, we identify fragments of ABA which admit a poly-sized instantiation. We propose two algorithmic approaches for reasoning in possibly non-flat ABA. The first approach utilizes the BAF instantiation while the second works directly without constructing arguments. An empirical evaluation shows that the former outperforms the latter on many instances, reflecting the lower complexity of BAF reasoning. This result is in contrast to flat ABA, where direct approaches dominate instantiation-based approaches.

AI has become pervasive in recent years, but state-of-the-art approaches predominantly neglect the need for AI systems to be contestable. Instead, contestability is advocated by AI guidelines (e.g. by the OECD) and regulation of automated decision-making (e.g. GDPR). In this position paper we explore how contestability can be achieved computationally in and for AI. We argue that contestable AI requires dynamic (human-machine and/or machine-machine) explainability and decision-making processes, whereby machines can (i) interact with humans and/or other machines to progressively explain their outputs and/or their reasoning as well as assess grounds for contestation provided by these humans and/or other machines, and (ii) revise their decision-making processes to redress any issues successfully raised during contestation. Given that much of the current AI landscape is tailored to static AIs, the need to accommodate contestability will require a radical rethinking, that, we argue, computational argumentation is ideally suited to support.

Assumption-based Argumentation (ABA) is a well-known structured argumentation formalism, whereby arguments and attacks between them are drawn from rules, defeasible assumptions and their contraries. A common restriction imposed on ABA frameworks (ABAFs) is that they are flat, i.e., each of the defeasible assumptions can only be assumed, but not derived. While it is known that flat ABAFs can be translated into abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) as proposed by Dung, no translation exists from general, possibly non-flat ABAFs into any kind of abstract argumentation formalism. In this paper, we close this gap and show that bipolar AFs (BAFs) can instantiate general ABAFs. To this end we develop suitable, novel BAF semantics which borrow from the notion of deductive support. We investigate basic properties of our BAFs, including computational complexity, and prove the desired relation to ABAFs under several semantics. Finally, in order to support computation and explainability, we propose the notion of dispute trees for our BAF semantics.

This paper is a contribution to the research on dynamics in assumption-based argumentation (ABA). We investigate situations where a given knowledge base undergoes certain changes. We show that two frequently investigated problems, namely enforcement of a given target atom and deciding strong equivalence of two given ABA frameworks, are intractable in general. Notably, these problems are both tractable for abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) which admit a close correspondence to ABA by constructing semanticspreserving instances. Inspired by this observation, we search for tractable fragments for ABA frameworks by means of the instantiated AFs. We argue that the usual instantiation procedure is not suitable for the investigation of dynamic scenarios since too much information is lost when constructing the abstract framework. We thus consider an extension of AFs, called cvAFs, equipping arguments with conclusions and vulnerabilities in order to better anticipate their role after the underlying knowledge base is extended. We investigate enforcement and strong equivalence for cvAFs and present syntactic conditions to decide them. We show that the correspondence between cvAFs and ABA frameworks is close enough to capture dynamics in ABA. This yields the desired tractable fragment. We furthermore discuss consequences for the corresponding problems for logic programs.