Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a novel framework that combines LLM-based argument mining with quantitative argumentation semantics and fuzzy description logics to reason about debates. The framework extracts a fuzzy argumentative knowledge base from raw debate text, representing arguments as entities with attack/support relations and initial fuzzy strengths. It then computes final argument strengths using quantitative argumentation semantics and embeds these results into a fuzzy description logic setting for expressive query answering.
LLMs can now engage in transparent, verifiable reasoning about debates by fusing argument mining with fuzzy description logics, moving beyond black-box statistical analysis.
Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance in analyzing and generating text, yet they struggle with explicit, transparent, and verifiable reasoning over complex texts such as those containing debates. In particular, they lack structured representations that capture how arguments support or attack each other and how their relative strengths determine overall acceptability. We encompass these limitations by proposing a framework that integrates learning-based argument mining with quantitative reasoning and ontology-based querying. Starting from a raw debate text, the framework extracts a fuzzy argumentative knowledge base, where arguments are explicitly represented as entities, linked by attack and support relations, and annotated with initial fuzzy strengths reflecting plausibility w.r.t. the debate's context. Quantitative argumentation semantics are then applied to compute final argument strengths by propagating the effects of supports and attacks. These results are then embedded into a fuzzy description logic setting, enabling expressive query answering through efficient rewriting techniques. The proposed approach provides a transparent, explainable, and formally grounded method for analyzing debates, overcoming purely statistical LLM-based analyses.
