Arguing and explaining classifications

ABSTRACT

Argumentation is a promising approach used by autonomous agents for reasoning about inconsistent knowledge, based on the construction and the comparison of arguments. In this paper, we apply this approach to the classification problem, whose purpose is to construct from a set of training examples a model (or hypothesis) that assigns a class to any new example.

We propose a general formal argumentation-based model that constructs arguments for/against each possible classification of an example, evaluates them, and determines among the conflicting arguments the acceptable ones. Finally, a "valid" classification of the example is suggested. Thus, not only the class of the example is given, but also the reasons behind that classification are provided to the user as well in a form that is easy to grasp.

We show that such an argumentation-based approach for classification offers other advantages, like for instance classifying examples even when the set of training examples is inconsistent, and considering more general preference relations between hypotheses. Moreover, we show that in the particular case of concept learning, the results of version space theory are retrieved in an elegant way in our argumentation framework.

REFERENCES

• 1: Leila Amgoud , Claudette Cayrol, Inferring from Inconsistency in Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks, Journal of Automated Reasoning, v.29 n.2, p.125-169, 2002 [doi>10.1023/A:1021603608656]
• 2: Phan Minh Dung, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artificial Intelligence, v.77 n.2, p.321-357, Sept. 1995 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X]
• 3: S. A. Gómez and C. I. Chesñevar. Integrating defeasible argumentation with fuzzy art neural networks for pattern classification. In Proc. ECML'03, Dubrovnik, September 2003.
• 4: T. Mitchell. Generalization as search. Artificial intelligence, 18:203--226, 1982.
• 5: M. Mozina, J. Zabkar, and I. Bratko. Argument based rule learning. In Proc. of the In 17^th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI'06.
• 6: S. Muggleton. Inverse entailment and Progol. New Generation Computing, 13:245--286, 1995.
• 7: H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 7:25--75, 1997.
• 8: J. R. Quinlan, Learning Logical Definitions from Relations, Machine Learning, v.5 n.3, p.239-266, Aug. 1990 [doi>10.1023/A:1022699322624]
• 9: Guillermo R. Simari , Ronald P. Loui, A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation, Artificial Intelligence, v.53 n.2-3, p.125-157, Feb. 1992 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(92)90069-A]
• 10: J. Zabkar, M. Mozina, J. Videcnik, and I. Bratko. Argument based machine learning in a medical domain. In I. Press, editor, Proc. of the 1^st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, pages 59--70, 2006.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.3 Deduction and Theorem Proving

Additional Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
        I.2.11 Distributed Artificial Intelligence

General Terms:
Human Factors, Theory

Keywords:
argumentation, classification