arxiv: 2604.19331 · v3 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 💻 cs.CL

Recognition: unknown

Evaluating LLM-Driven Summarisation of Parliamentary Debates with Computational Argumentation

Eoghan Cunningham , Derek Greene , James Cross , Antonio Rago

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL

keywords computational argumentationLLM summarizationparliamentary debatessummary faithfulnessargument preservationEuropean Parliamentpolicy justification

0 comments

The pith

A formal framework using computational argumentation evaluates how faithfully LLM summaries preserve the reasoning structures in parliamentary debates.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Parliamentary debates present detailed arguments for and against policy proposals, yet their volume makes them inaccessible to many citizens. Large language models offer a way to generate summaries at scale, but existing automatic metrics for summarization quality often fail to match human judgments on whether the key reasoning has been kept intact. This paper introduces a framework that grounds evaluation in the contested proposals at the heart of each debate and applies computational argumentation to check formal properties of argument preservation. The approach is illustrated with a case study drawing on debates from the European Parliament and summaries produced by LLMs. By focusing on the faithful transmission of justifications and oppositions, the method aims to provide a more targeted measure of summary usefulness for democratic engagement.

Core claim

The paper proposes a formal framework for evaluating parliamentary debate summaries that grounds argument structures in the contested proposals up for debate. This novel approach, driven by computational argumentation, focuses the evaluation on formal properties concerning the faithful preservation of the reasoning presented to justify or oppose policy outcomes. The methods are demonstrated using a case-study of debates from the European Parliament and associated LLM-driven summaries.

What carries the argument

The formal evaluation framework that structures arguments around contested policy proposals and assesses summaries according to preservation of reasoning properties via computational argumentation.

If this is right

Summaries can be scored specifically on retention of the logical connections between supporting reasons and policy positions.
Evaluation moves beyond generic text overlap to measure whether the balance of justifications and oppositions is maintained.
Different LLM summarization systems can be compared quantitatively on how well they handle argumentative debate content.
The framework supplies a concrete way to flag summaries that distort the reasoning offered for or against proposals.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same structure-checking approach could be tested on transcripts of other argumentative settings such as legislative committees or public inquiries.
LLM developers might incorporate argument-preservation objectives directly into training or fine-tuning to improve outputs on debate-like text.
Public-facing parliamentary archives could adopt the metric to surface summaries that best reflect the original contest of reasons.
Further automation of argument-structure extraction from raw debate transcripts would make the framework easier to apply at scale.

Load-bearing premise

That computational argumentation can reliably capture and formalize the key reasoning structures in parliamentary debates such that formal properties of argument preservation provide a valid measure of summary faithfulness.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment in which human experts rate a collection of LLM summaries for faithfulness to the original debate arguments and these ratings show no reliable correlation with the framework's computed preservation scores.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19331 by Antonio Rago, Derek Greene, Eoghan Cunningham, James Cross.

read the original abstract

Understanding how policy is debated and justified in parliament is a fundamental aspect of the democratic process. However, the volume and complexity of such debates mean that outside audiences struggle to engage. Meanwhile, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to enable automated summarisation at scale. While summaries of debates can make parliamentary procedures more accessible, evaluating whether these summaries faithfully communicate argumentative content remains challenging. Existing automated summarisation metrics have been shown to correlate poorly with human judgements of consistency (i.e., faithfulness or alignment between summary and source). In this work, we propose a formal framework for evaluating parliamentary debate summaries that grounds argument structures in the contested proposals up for debate. Our novel approach, driven by computational argumentation, focuses the evaluation on formal properties concerning the faithful preservation of the reasoning presented to justify or oppose policy outcomes. We demonstrate our methods using a case-study of debates from the European Parliament and associated LLM-driven summaries.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper proposes grounding LLM summary evaluation in computational argumentation structures from parliamentary debates, but the abstract and case study offer no implementation, metrics, or human validation to show it works.

read the letter

The core idea here is to move past ROUGE-style metrics for debate summaries by checking whether key argument structures around contested proposals get preserved. That targets a real problem: standard automatic scores often miss whether a summary keeps the actual reasoning for or against a policy intact. The authors sketch a framework that extracts argument relations from the source debates and then scores summaries on formal properties like support or attack preservation. They apply it in a European Parliament case study with LLM outputs. That combination is new enough to stand out from generic summarization work, and it correctly flags the mismatch between existing metrics and human consistency judgments in this domain. The case study shows they can at least run the pipeline on real data, which is a start for a proposal paper. The main weakness is that nothing in the write-up demonstrates the framework actually tracks human judgments of faithfulness. No correlation numbers, no inter-annotator agreement, no comparison against baselines on the same summaries. Parliamentary language is full of implicit premises and rhetorical moves that standard Dung-style or ASPIC+ frameworks tend to flatten, so the untested assumption that formal preservation scores will align with human views on reasoning fidelity is doing a lot of work. Without that grounding, the method risks producing scores that diverge from the consistency the authors want to measure. This is aimed at researchers in computational argumentation and political NLP who already work on evaluation gaps. A reader looking for a ready-to-use metric or strong empirical results will come away empty. It deserves a serious referee because the gap it identifies is genuine and the direction is worth feedback on how to make the formal checks more robust. I would send it out for review rather than desk reject, with the expectation that the authors add concrete extraction details, a small validation set, and direct comparison to human ratings.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a formal framework for evaluating LLM-generated summaries of parliamentary debates, grounded in computational argumentation structures extracted from contested policy proposals. The framework emphasizes formal properties such as preservation of argument acceptability, attack/support relations, and reasoning chains used to justify or oppose outcomes. It is demonstrated via a case study applying the approach to European Parliament debates and associated LLM summaries, with the goal of providing a more reliable alternative to metrics like ROUGE that correlate poorly with human judgments of faithfulness.

Significance. If validated, the framework could offer a principled, argument-aware evaluation method for summarization in political discourse, where preserving reasoning structures is critical. This addresses a known limitation of surface-level metrics and could support better LLM applications in democratic transparency tools. The grounding in contested proposals is a strength, as is the focus on formal properties rather than ad-hoc heuristics.

major comments (2)

[§4] §4 (Case Study): The demonstration applies the framework to European Parliament debates but reports no quantitative results, such as correlation between the proposed formal scores and human faithfulness ratings, inter-annotator agreement, or direct comparison against baselines like ROUGE or BERTScore. This leaves the central claim that argument-preservation properties constitute a valid faithfulness metric untested and reduces the case study to an illustrative example rather than evidence.
[§3] §3 (Framework Definition): The formal properties (e.g., acceptability or relation preservation) are defined in terms of structures extracted from contested proposals, but the manuscript provides no details on how implicit premises, rhetorical framing, or multi-turn rebuttals common in parliamentary debates are handled by the chosen argumentation formalism (e.g., ASPIC+ or Dung-style). Without this, it is unclear whether the properties reliably track the reasoning the authors aim to evaluate.

minor comments (2)

The abstract and introduction could more explicitly state the exact formal properties being measured and how they differ from existing argumentation-based evaluation approaches in the literature.
Figure 1 (framework overview) would benefit from an annotated example showing input debate text, extracted arguments, and computed preservation score.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight important aspects for strengthening the presentation of our framework and its evaluation. We address each major comment below, clarifying the intended scope of the case study while committing to revisions that add quantitative validation and further methodological details. These changes will better support the claim that argument-preservation properties provide a useful faithfulness signal.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§4] §4 (Case Study): The demonstration applies the framework to European Parliament debates but reports no quantitative results, such as correlation between the proposed formal scores and human faithfulness ratings, inter-annotator agreement, or direct comparison against baselines like ROUGE or BERTScore. This leaves the central claim that argument-preservation properties constitute a valid faithfulness metric untested and reduces the case study to an illustrative example rather than evidence.

Authors: The case study is explicitly positioned as a demonstration of how the framework can be applied to real parliamentary data and LLM summaries, rather than a comprehensive empirical validation of the metric's correlation with human judgments. The primary contribution remains the formal definition of argument-preservation properties grounded in contested proposals. That said, we agree that quantitative evidence would strengthen the manuscript. In the revision we will add a new subsection reporting a human evaluation on a subset of the debate summaries: annotators will rate faithfulness with respect to argument structures, we will compute correlations between our formal scores and these ratings, report inter-annotator agreement, and include direct comparisons against ROUGE and BERTScore baselines. revision: yes
Referee: [§3] §3 (Framework Definition): The formal properties (e.g., acceptability or relation preservation) are defined in terms of structures extracted from contested proposals, but the manuscript provides no details on how implicit premises, rhetorical framing, or multi-turn rebuttals common in parliamentary debates are handled by the chosen argumentation formalism (e.g., ASPIC+ or Dung-style). Without this, it is unclear whether the properties reliably track the reasoning the authors aim to evaluate.

Authors: Our framework employs Dung-style abstract argumentation frameworks in which nodes represent propositions directly tied to the contested proposal and edges capture explicit support or attack relations extracted from the debate transcript. Implicit premises are reconstructed only when they are necessary to complete an attack or support link that affects acceptability; rhetorical framing is treated as part of the support/attack relation rather than as a separate layer. Multi-turn rebuttals are encoded as chains of successive attacks within the same argumentation graph. We will revise §3 to include an expanded subsection with concrete examples from the European Parliament data illustrating these extraction decisions and their impact on the formal properties. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: framework proposed as novel without self-referential derivations

full rationale

The paper introduces a new formal framework for evaluating LLM summaries of parliamentary debates by grounding them in computational argumentation structures extracted from contested proposals. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or predictions are described in the provided text. The approach is presented as a proposal with a case-study demonstration on European Parliament debates, without any reduction of claims to prior inputs by construction, self-citation chains, or renaming of known results. The central premise relies on the assumption that formal argument properties measure faithfulness, but this is an external validity claim rather than a circular derivation. The framework is self-contained as an original proposal.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the assumption that argument structures in debates can be formally represented and that preservation of those structures equates to faithful summarization. No free parameters or invented entities are mentioned.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Computational argumentation can formally represent the reasoning structures used to justify or oppose policy proposals in parliamentary debates.
This is the core premise enabling the grounding of evaluation in argument structures.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5457 in / 1166 out tokens · 29186 ms · 2026-05-10T02:28:49.785869+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Multiagent Dynamics of Gradual Argumentation Semantics , booktitle =

Louise Dupuis de Tarl. Multiagent Dynamics of Gradual Argumentation Semantics , booktitle =. 2022 , url =. doi:10.5555/3535850.3535892 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.5555/3535850.3535892 2022
[2]

High-quality argumentative information in low resources approaches improve counter-narrative generation , booktitle =

Dami. High-quality argumentative information in low resources approaches improve counter-narrative generation , booktitle =. 2023 , url =. doi:10.18653/V1/2023.FINDINGS-EMNLP.194 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.194 2023
[3]

DISPUTool 3.0: Fallacy Detection and Repairing in Argumentative Political Debates , booktitle =

Pierpaolo Goffredo and Deborah Dore and Elena Cabrio and Serena Villata , opteditor =. DISPUTool 3.0: Fallacy Detection and Repairing in Argumentative Political Debates , booktitle =. 2025 , url =. doi:10.18653/V1/2025.ACL-DEMO.45 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-demo.45 2025
[4]

Leveraging Graph Structural Knowledge to Improve Argument Relation Prediction in Political Debates , booktitle =

Deborah Dore and Stefano Faralli and Serena Villata , opteditor =. Leveraging Graph Structural Knowledge to Improve Argument Relation Prediction in Political Debates , booktitle =. 2025 , url =. doi:10.18653/V1/2025.ARGMINING-1.7 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.argmining-1.7 2025
[5]

Can Large Language Models Understand Argument Schemes? , booktitle =

Elfia Bezou. Can Large Language Models Understand Argument Schemes? , booktitle =. 2025 , url =

2025
[6]

2022 , url =

Annette Hautli. 2022 , url =

2022
[7]

The Open Argument Mining Framework , booktitle =

Debela Gemechu and Ramon Ruiz. The Open Argument Mining Framework , booktitle =. 2025 , url =. doi:10.18653/V1/2025.ACL-DEMO.31 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-demo.31 2025
[8]

Limited Generalizability in Argument Mining: State-Of-The-Art Models Learn Datasets, Not Arguments , booktitle =

Marc Feger and Katarina Boland and Stefan Dietze , opteditor =. Limited Generalizability in Argument Mining: State-Of-The-Art Models Learn Datasets, Not Arguments , booktitle =. 2025 , url =

2025
[9]

Looking at the Unseen: Effective Sampling of Non-Related Propositions for Argument Mining , booktitle =

Ramon Ruiz. Looking at the Unseen: Effective Sampling of Non-Related Propositions for Argument Mining , booktitle =. 2025 , url =

2025
[10]

Argumentative Large Language Models for Explainable and Contestable Claim Verification , booktitle =

Gabriel Freedman and Adam Dejl and Deniz Gorur and Xiang Yin and Antonio Rago and Francesca Toni , opteditor =. Argumentative Large Language Models for Explainable and Contestable Claim Verification , booktitle =. 2025 , url =. doi:10.1609/AAAI.V39I14.33637 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i14.33637 2025
[11]

Evaluating LLM-Driven Summarisation of Parliamentary Debates with Computational Argumentation

Eoghan Cunningham and Derek Greene and James Cross and Antonio Rago , title =. CoRR , volume =. 2026 , url =. 2604.19331 , biburl =

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[12]

On the Acceptability of Arguments in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks , booktitle =

Claudette Cayrol and Marie. On the Acceptability of Arguments in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks , booktitle =. 2005 , url =. doi:10.1007/11518655\_33 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1007/11518655 2005
[13]

IJCAI '24: Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages =

Antonio Rago , title =. IJCAI '24: Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages =. 2024 , url =

2024
[14]

What do we want from Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)? -

Markus Langer and Daniel Oster and Timo Speith and Holger Hermanns and Lena K. What do we want from Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)? -. Artif. Intell. , volume =. 2021 , url =. doi:10.1016/J.ARTINT.2021.103473 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1016/j.artint.2021.103473 2021
[15]

Sajid Ali and Tamer Abuhmed and Shaker H. Ali El. Explainable Artificial Intelligence. Inf. Fusion , volume =. 2023 , url =. doi:10.1016/J.INFFUS.2023.101805 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101805 2023
[16]

PAIS (To Appear) , optseries =

Varun Raaghav and Dimitrios Bikos and Antonio Rago and Francesca Toni and Maria Charalambides , title =. PAIS (To Appear) , optseries =. 2025 , url =

2025
[17]

Interactive Explanations by Conflict Resolution via Argumentative Exchanges , booktitle =

Antonio Rago and Hengzhi Li and Francesca Toni , opteditor =. Interactive Explanations by Conflict Resolution via Argumentative Exchanges , booktitle =. 2023 , url =. doi:10.24963/KR.2023/57 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.24963/kr.2023/57 2023
[18]

Explainable Time Series Prediction of Tyre Energy in Formula One Race Strategy , booktitle =

Devin Thomas and Junqi Jiang and Avinash Kori and Aaron Russo and Steffen Winkler and Stuart Sale and Joseph McMillan and Francesco Belardinelli and Antonio Rago , opteditor =. Explainable Reinforcement Learning for Formula One Race Strategy , booktitle =. 2025 , url =. doi:10.1145/3672608.3707766 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1145/3672608.3707766 2025
[19]

Explainable Time Series Prediction of Tyre Energy in Formula One Race Strategy , booktitle =

Jamie Todd and Junqi Jiang and Aaron Russo and Steffen Winkler and Stuart Sale and Joseph McMillan and Antonio Rago , opteditor =. Explainable Time Series Prediction of Tyre Energy in Formula One Race Strategy , booktitle =. 2025 , url =. doi:10.1145/3672608.3707765 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1145/3672608.3707765 2025
[20]

Optimizing Language Models for Argumentative Reasoning , booktitle =

Luke Thorburn and Ariel Kruger , opteditor =. Optimizing Language Models for Argumentative Reasoning , booktitle =. 2022 , url =

2022
[21]

2024 , url =

Bonan Min and Hayley Ross and Elior Sulem and Amir Pouran Ben Veyseh and Thien Huu Nguyen and Oscar Sainz and Eneko Agirre and Ilana Heintz and Dan Roth , title =. 2024 , url =. doi:10.1145/3605943 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1145/3605943 2024
[22]

Tom B. Brown and Benjamin Mann and Nick Ryder and Melanie Subbiah and Jared Kaplan and Prafulla Dhariwal and Arvind Neelakantan and Pranav Shyam and Girish Sastry and Amanda Askell and Sandhini Agarwal and Ariel Herbert. Language Models are Few-Shot Learners , booktitle =. 2020 , url =

2020
[23]

Gomez and Lukasz Kaiser and Illia Polosukhin , opteditor =

Ashish Vaswani and Noam Shazeer and Niki Parmar and Jakob Uszkoreit and Llion Jones and Aidan N. Gomez and Lukasz Kaiser and Illia Polosukhin , opteditor =. Attention is All you Need , booktitle =. 2017 , url =

2017
[24]

Argument Comput

Piyawat Lertvittayakumjorn and Francesca Toni , title =. Argument Comput. , volume =. 2023 , url =. doi:10.3233/AAC-220004 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.3233/aac-220004 2023
[25]

FAccT , pages =

Andrea Ferrario and Michele Loi , title =. FAccT , pages =. 2022 , optcrossref =

2022
[26]

There Is Not Enough Information

Jakob Schoeffer and Niklas K. "There Is Not Enough Information": On the Effects of Explanations on Perceptions of Informational Fairness and Trustworthiness in Automated Decision-Making , booktitle =. 2022 , optcrossref =

2022
[27]

FAccT , pages =

Alon Jacovi and Ana Marasovic and Tim Miller and Yoav Goldberg , title =. FAccT , pages =. 2021 , optcrossref =

2021
[28]

Graphical Representation Enhances Human Compliance with Principles for Graded Argumentation Semantics , booktitle =

Srdjan Vesic and Bruno Yun and Predrag Teovanovic , opteditor =. Graphical Representation Enhances Human Compliance with Principles for Graded Argumentation Semantics , booktitle =. 2022 , url =. doi:10.5555/3535850.3535997 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.5555/3535850.3535997 2022
[29]

Argumentation schemes for clinical decision support , journal =

Isabel Sassoon and Nadin K. Argumentation schemes for clinical decision support , journal =. 2021 , url =. doi:10.3233/AAC-200550 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.3233/aac-200550 2021
[30]

Eagan and Winston Maxwell , title =

Astrid Bertrand and James R. Eagan and Winston Maxwell , title =. 2023 , optcrossref =

2023
[31]

2021 , url =

AnneMarie Borg and Floris Bex , title =. 2021 , url =. doi:10.1109/MIS.2021.3053102 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1109/mis.2021.3053102 2021
[32]

Dispute Trees as Explanations in Quantitative (Bipolar) Argumentation , booktitle =

Kristijonas Cyras and Timotheus Kampik and Qingtao Weng , opteditor =. Dispute Trees as Explanations in Quantitative (Bipolar) Argumentation , booktitle =. 2022 , url =

2022
[33]

Delivering Trustworthy

Jo. Delivering Trustworthy. 2022 , url =. doi:10.1609/AAAI.V36I11.21499 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i11.21499 2022
[34]

Stuckey and Nina Narodytska and Jo

Jinqiang Yu and Alexey Ignatiev and Peter J. Stuckey and Nina Narodytska and Jo. Eliminating the Impossible, Whatever Remains Must Be True: On Extracting and Applying Background Knowledge in the Context of Formal Explanations , booktitle =. 2023 , url =. doi:10.1609/AAAI.V37I4.25528 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i4.25528 2023
[35]

A Symbolic Approach to Explaining Bayesian Network Classifiers , booktitle =

Andy Shih and Arthur Choi and Adnan Darwiche , opteditor =. A Symbolic Approach to Explaining Bayesian Network Classifiers , booktitle =. 2018 , url =. doi:10.24963/IJCAI.2018/708 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.24963/ijcai.2018/708 2018
[36]

Looking Inside the Black-Box: Logic-based Explanations for Neural Networks , booktitle =

Jo. Looking Inside the Black-Box: Logic-based Explanations for Neural Networks , booktitle =. 2022 , url =

2022
[37]

Behavioral and brain sciences , volume=

Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory , author=. Behavioral and brain sciences , volume=. 2011 , publisher=

2011
[38]

Davide Ceolin and Giuseppe Primiero and Michael Soprano and Jan Wielemaker , title =. Inf. Syst. , volume =. 2022 , url =. doi:10.1016/J.IS.2022.102107 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1016/j.is.2022.102107 2022
[39]

2020 , optcrossref =

Alex Raymond and Hatice Gunes and Amanda Prorok , title =. 2020 , optcrossref =. doi:10.5555/3398761.3398890 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.5555/3398761.3398890 2020
[40]

Wooldridge , title =

Peter McBurney and Simon Parsons and Michael J. Wooldridge , title =. 2002 , optcrossref =. doi:10.1145/544741.544836 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1145/544741.544836 2002
[41]

2015 , optcrossref =

Xiuyi Fan and Francesca Toni , title =. 2015 , optcrossref =. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25524-8\_34 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25524-8 2015
[42]

2015 , optcrossref =

Xiuyi Fan and Francesca Toni , title =. 2015 , optcrossref =

2015
[43]

2007 , optcrossref =

Elizabeth Black and Anthony Hunter , title =. 2007 , optcrossref =. doi:10.1145/1329125.1329417 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1145/1329125.1329417 2007
[44]

The burden of persuasion in structured argumentation , optbooktitle =

Roberta Calegari and R. The burden of persuasion in structured argumentation , optbooktitle =. 2021 , optcrossref =. doi:10.1145/3462757.3466078 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1145/3462757.3466078 2021
[45]

Argument Comput

Anthony Hunter , title =. Argument Comput. , volume =. 2018 , url =. doi:10.3233/AAC-170032 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.3233/aac-170032 2018
[46]

Eagan and Winston Maxwell , title =

Astrid Bertrand and Rafik Belloum and James R. Eagan and Winston Maxwell , title =. 2022 , optcrossref =. doi:10.1145/3514094.3534164 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1145/3514094.3534164 2022
[47]

Charles Antaki and Ivan Leudar , title=. Europ. J. of Social Psychology , year=
[48]

1991 , optcrossref =

Alison Cawsey , title =. 1991 , optcrossref =

1991
[49]

Javier Palanca and Stella Heras and Paula A. Rodr. An Argumentation-based Conversational Recommender System for Recommending Learning Objects , booktitle =. 2018 , url =

2018
[50]

Briguez and Maximiliano Celmo Bud

Cristian E. Briguez and Maximiliano Celmo Bud. Argument-based mixed recommenders and their application to movie suggestion , journal =. 2014 , url =. doi:10.1016/J.ESWA.2014.03.046 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.03.046 2014
[51]

On Pixel-Wise Explanations for Non-Linear Classifier Decisions by Layer-Wise Relevance Propagation , year =

Bach, Sebastian AND Binder, Alexander AND Montavon, Grégoire AND Klauschen, Frederick AND Müller, Klaus-Robert AND Samek, Wojciech , journal =. On Pixel-Wise Explanations for Non-Linear Classifier Decisions by Layer-Wise Relevance Propagation , year =
[52]

van Engers and Enrico Francesconi and Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sileno and Frank Schilder and Adam Wyner and Trevor J

Giovanni Sartor and Michal Araszkiewicz and Katie Atkinson and Floris Bex and Tom M. van Engers and Enrico Francesconi and Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sileno and Frank Schilder and Adam Wyner and Trevor J. M. Bench. Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: the second decade , journal =. 2022 , url =. doi:10.1007/S10506-022-09326-7 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1007/s10506-022-09326-7 2022
[53]

Lundberg and Su

Scott M. Lundberg and Su. A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions , booktitle =. 2017 , url =

2017
[54]

2021 , url =

Nico Potyka , title =. 2021 , url =. doi:10.1609/AAAI.V35I7.16801 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i7.16801 2021
[55]

On Instantiating Generalised Properties of Gradual Argumentation Frameworks , booktitle =

Antonio Rago and Pietro Baroni and Francesca Toni , opteditor =. On Instantiating Generalised Properties of Gradual Argumentation Frameworks , booktitle =. 2018 , url =. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-00461-3\_17 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-00461-3 2018
[56]

Social Abstract Argumentation , booktitle =

Jo. Social Abstract Argumentation , booktitle =. 2011 , url =

2011
[57]

Philippe Besnard and Anthony Hunter , title =. Artif. Intell. , volume =. 2001 , url =. doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00071-6 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(01)00071-6 2001
[58]

Utilitarian Desires , journal =

J. Utilitarian Desires , journal =. 2002 , url =. doi:10.1023/A:1015508524218 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1023/a:1015508524218 2002
[59]

Bipolar Representation and Fusion of Preferences on the Possibilistic Logic framework , booktitle =

Salem Benferhat and Didier Dubois and Souhila Kaci and Henri Prade , opteditor =. Bipolar Representation and Fusion of Preferences on the Possibilistic Logic framework , booktitle =. 2002 , timestamp =

2002
[60]

Behavior Research Methods , pages=

Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research , author=. Behavior Research Methods , pages=. 2022 , optdoi=

2022
[61]

White, Margaret Mitchell, Timnit Gebru, Ben Hutchinson, Jamila Smith-Loud, Daniel Theron, and Parker Barnes

Kacper Sokol and Peter A. Flach , opteditor =. Explainability fact sheets: a framework for systematic assessment of explainable approaches , booktitle =. 2020 , url =. doi:10.1145/3351095.3372870 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1145/3351095.3372870 2020
[62]

Zheng and Jacqueline A

Felix Wong and Erica J. Zheng and Jacqueline A. Valeri and Nina M. Donghia and Melis N. Anahtar and Satotaka Omori and Alicia Li and Andres Cubillos. Discovery of a structural class of antibiotics with explainable deep learning , journal =. 2024 , url =. doi:10.1038/S41586-023-06887-8 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06887-8 2024
[63]

Keane, Eoin M

Mark T. Keane and Eoin M. Kenny and Eoin Delaney and Barry Smyth , opteditor =. If Only We Had Better Counterfactual Explanations: Five Key Deficits to Rectify in the Evaluation of Counterfactual. 2021 , url =. doi:10.24963/IJCAI.2021/609 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.24963/ijcai.2021/609 2021
[64]

Jacovi and Y

Alon Jacovi and Yoav Goldberg , opteditor =. Towards Faithfully Interpretable. 2020 , url =. doi:10.18653/V1/2020.ACL-MAIN.386 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.386 2020
[65]

Formalising the Robustness of Counterfactual Explanations for Neural Networks , booktitle =

Junqi Jiang and Francesco Leofante and Antonio Rago and Francesca Toni , opteditor =. Formalising the Robustness of Counterfactual Explanations for Neural Networks , booktitle =. 2023 , url =. doi:10.1609/AAAI.V37I12.26740 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i12.26740 2023
[66]

On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n -person games , volume =

Phan Minh Dung , title =. Artificial Intelligence , volume =. 1995 , url =. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-x 1995
[67]

Distill , year =

Olah, Chris and Satyanarayan, Arvind and Johnson, Ian and Carter, Shan and Schubert, Ludwig and Ye, Katherine and Mordvintsev, Alexander , title =. Distill , year =
[68]

Handbook of Formal Argumentation , editor=
[69]

Katie Atkinson and Pietro Baroni and Massimiliano Giacomin and Anthony Hunter and Henry Prakken and Chris Reed and Guillermo Ricardo Simari and Matthias Thimm and Serena Villata , title =
[70]

1999 , url =

Judea Pearl , title =. 1999 , url =

1999
[71]

Weighted Bipolar Argumentation Graphs: Axioms and Semantics , booktitle =

Leila Amgoud and Jonathan Ben. Weighted Bipolar Argumentation Graphs: Axioms and Semantics , booktitle =. 2018 , url =. doi:10.24963/ijcai.2018/720 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.24963/ijcai.2018/720 2018
[72]

Timmer and John

Sjoerd T. Timmer and John. A two-phase method for extracting explanatory arguments from Bayesian networks , journal =. 2017 , url =. doi:10.1016/J.IJAR.2016.09.002 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2016.09.002 2017
[73]

Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , pages =

Piyawat Lertvittayakumjorn and Lucia Specia and Francesca Toni , opteditor =. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , pages =. 2020 , url =. doi:10.18653/V1/2020.EMNLP-MAIN.24 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.24 2020
[74]

SpArX: Sparse Argumentative Explanations for Neural Networks , booktitle =

Hamed Ayoobi and Nico Potyka and Francesca Toni , opteditor =. SpArX: Sparse Argumentative Explanations for Neural Networks , booktitle =. 2023 , url =. doi:10.3233/FAIA230265 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.3233/faia230265 2023
[75]

Explaining Random Forests Using Bipolar Argumentation and Markov Networks , booktitle =

Nico Potyka and Xiang Yin and Francesca Toni , opteditor =. Explaining Random Forests Using Bipolar Argumentation and Markov Networks , booktitle =. 2023 , url =. doi:10.1609/AAAI.V37I8.26132 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i8.26132 2023
[76]

2022 , booktitle=

Joel Oksanen and Oana Cocarascu and Francesca Toni , title =. 2022 , booktitle=

2022
[77]

International Journal of Approximate Reasoning , volume =

Sylwia Polberg and Anthony Hunter , title =. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning , volume =. 2018 , url =. doi:10.1016/J.IJAR.2017.11.009 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2017.11.009 2018
[78]

Alexandros Vassiliades and Nick Bassiliades and Theodore Patkos , title =. Knowl. Eng. Rev. , volume =. 2021 , url =. doi:10.1017/S0269888921000011 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1017/s0269888921000011 2021
[79]

ICUS , title=

Guo, Yihang and Yu, Tianyuan and Bai, Liang and Tang, Jun and Ruan, Yirun and Zhou, Yun , optbooktitle=. ICUS , title=. 2023 , volume=

2023
[80]

On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks , journal =

Leila Amgoud and Claudette Cayrol and Marie. On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks , journal =. 2008 , url =. doi:10.1002/INT.20307 , timestamp =

work page doi:10.1002/int.20307 2008

Showing first 80 references.