Towards an Argumentative Foundation for Evaluative AI
Xiang Yin, Tim Miller, Nico Potyka, Antonio Rago, Francesca Toni
Abstract
Evaluative AI (EAI) has been recently proposed as a way to support human decision-making, not by producing a single recommendation, but by presenting competing hypotheses together with evidence for and against each. In this position paper, we advocate (computational) argumentation as a particularly suitable paradigm to provide a formal, computable foundation for forms of EAI that are explainable and contestable, setting the ground for a long-term research agenda towards distributed and human-centred EAI systems.
Create a lesson
Related papers
Clean Engineering, Unstable Measurement: A Preregistered Reliability Failure of Black-Box LLM Observers on Shared Endpoints
Haoyaun Zhu, Jie Zhang
A Computationally Feasible Framework for Causal Probabilistic Explanation
Rafal Urbaniak, Sam Witty, Daniel Waxman et al.
Rethinking On-Policy Distillation of Large Language Models II: One Training Example
Zixuan Fu, Bingxiang He, Yuxin Zuo et al.
A Case Study on Emergent Cheating and Whistleblowing in Autonomous Research Swarms
Davide Paglieri, Logan Cross, Tim Genewein et al.
From Deceptive Outputs to Deceptive Mechanisms: A Causal Framework for Language-Model Deception Research
Yakov Pyotr Shkolnikov
Terminal-Universe: Turning Agent Trajectories into Scalable Terminal Environments
Jie Wu, Zhenru Zhang, Beichen Zhang et al.