We present ICX (Individual Consistency eXplorer), an interactive dashboard designed to support stakeholders in exploring individual fairness notions within algorithmic decision-making systems. ICX focuses on a set of metrics based on the consistency score, a key measure of individual fairness, by allowing the visualisation of how the classification of an individual compares with that of similar individuals. Stakeholders can define and fine-tune the notion of similarity according to domain-specific criteria, and examine individual-level views that highlight comparable individuals and their classification outcomes. ICX empowers users to interrogate, analyse and interpret fairness at the individual level, making algorithmic decision-making more transparent and accountable.

Mamta Mamta, Oana Cocarascu. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2025.

The aggregation of online reviews is one of the dominant methods of quality control for users in various domains, from retail to entertainment. Consequently, explainable aggregation of reviews is increasingly sought-after. We introduce quantitative argumentation technology to this setting, towards automatically generating reasoned review aggregations equipped with dialogical explanations. To this end, we define a novel form of argumentative dialogical agent (ADA), using ontologies to harbour information from reviews into argumentation frameworks. These agents may then be evaluated with a quantitative argumentation semantics and used to mediate the generation of dialogical explanations for item recommendations based on the reviews. We show how to deploy ADAs in three different contexts in which argumentation frameworks are mined from text, guided by ontologies. First, for hotel recommendations, we use a human-authored ontology and exemplify the potential range of dialogical explanations afforded by ADAs. Second, for movie recommendations, we empirically evaluate an ADA based on a bespoke ontology (extracted semi-automatically, by natural language processing), by demonstrating that its quantitative evaluations, which are shown to satisfy desirable theoretical properties, are comparable with those on a well-known movie review aggregation website. Finally, for product recommendation in e-commerce, we use another bespoke ontology (extracted fully automatically, by natural language processing , from a website's reviews) to construct an ADA which is then empirically evaluated favourably against review aggregations from the website.

As algorithmic decision-making systems become more prevalent in society, ensuring the fairness of these systems is becoming increasingly important. Whilst there has been substantial research in building fair algorithmic decision-making systems, the majority of these methods require access to the training data, including personal characteristics, and are not transparent regarding which individuals are classified unfairly. In this paper, we propose a novel model-agnostic argumentation-based method to determine why an individual is classified differently in comparison to similar individuals. Our method uses a quantitative argumentation framework to represent attribute-value pairs of an individual and of those similar to them, and uses a well-known semantics to identify the attribute-value pairs in the individual contributing most to their different classification. We evaluate our method on two datasets commonly used in the fairness literature and illustrate its effectiveness in the identification of bias.

Argument schemes represent stereotypical patterns of reasoning that capture the inferences from premise(s) to conclusion. Despite their usefulness in argument mining, argument scheme classification remains a largely understudied task in NLP. In this paper, we present EthiX, a novel dataset for classifying argument schemes, comprising arguments spanning 22 ethical topics which are manually annotated with argument schemes following Walton’s taxonomy. We evaluate pre-trained models fine-tuned on our dataset and propose a baseline to the community.

As algorithmic decision-making systems (ADMS) are increasingly deployed across various sectors, the importance of research on fairness in Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues to grow. In this paper we highlight a number of significant practical limitations and regulatory compliance issues associated with the application of existing bias mitigation methods to ADMS. We present an example of an algorithmic system used in recruitment to illustrate these limitations. Our analysis of existing methods indicates a pressing need for a change in the approach to the development of new methods. In order to address the limitations, we provide recommendations for key factors to consider in the development of new bias mitigation methods that aim to be effective in real-world scenarios and comply with legal requirements in the European Union, United Kingdom and United States, such as non-discrimination, data protection and sector-specific regulations. Further, we suggest a checklist relating to these recommendations that should be included with the development of new bias mitigation methods.

Argument(ation) Mining (AM) is the research area which aims at extracting argument components and predicting argumentative relations (i.e., support and attack) from text. In particular, numerous approaches have been proposed in the literature to predict the relations holding between arguments, and application-specific annotated resources were built for this purpose. Despite the fact that these resources were created to experiment on the same task, the definition of a single relation prediction method to be successfully applied to a significant portion of these datasets is an open research problem in AM. This means that none of the methods proposed in the literature can be easily ported from one resource to another. In this paper, we address this problem by proposing a set of dataset independent strong neural baselines which obtain homogeneous results on all the datasets proposed in the literature for the argumentative relation prediction task in AM. Thus, our baselines can be employed by the AM community to compare more effectively how well a method performs on the argumentative relation prediction task.

Today’s AI landscape is permeated by plentiful data anddominated by powerful data-centric methods with the potential toimpact a wide range of human sectors. Yet, in some settings this po-tential is hindered by these data-centric AI methods being mostlyopaque. Considerable efforts are currently being devoted to defin-ing methods for explaining black-box techniques in some settings,while the use of transparent methods is being advocated in others,especially when high-stake decisions are involved, as in healthcareand the practice of law. In this paper we advocate a novel transpar-ent paradigm of Data-Empowered Argumentation (DEAr in short)for dialectically explainable predictions. DEAr relies upon the ex-traction of argumentation debates from data, so that the dialecticaloutcomes of these debates amount to predictions (e.g. classifications)that can be explained dialectically. The argumentation debates con-sist of (data) arguments which may not be linguistic in general butmay nonetheless be deemed to be ‘arguments’ in that they are dialec-tically related, for instance by disagreeing on data labels. We illus-trate and experiment with the DEAr paradigm in three settings, mak-ing use, respectively, of categorical data, (annotated) images and text.We show empirically that DEAr is competitive with another transpar-ent model, namely decision trees (DTs), while also providing natu-rally dialectical explanations.

As AI systems become ever more intertwined in our personal lives, the way in which they explain themselves to and interact with humans is an increasingly critical research area. The explanation of recommendations is thus a pivotal functionality in a user’s experience of a recommender system (RS), providing the possibility of enhancing many of its desirable features in addition to its effectiveness (accuracy wrt users’ preferences). For an RS that we prove empirically is effective, we show how argumentative abstractions underpinning recommendations can provide the structural scaffolding for (different types of) interactive explanations (IEs), i.e. explanations supporting interactions with users. We prove formally that these IEs empower feedback mechanisms that guarantee that recommendations will improve with time, hence rendering the RS scrutable. Finally, we prove experimentally that the various forms of IE (tabular, textual and conversational) induce trust in the recommendations and provide a high degree of transparency in the RS’s functionality.

A significant problem of recommender systems is their inability to explain recommendations, resulting in turn in ineffective feedback from users and the inability to adapt to users’ preferences. We propose a hybrid method for calculating predicted ratings, built upon an item/aspect-based graph with users’ partially given ratings, that can be naturally used to provide explanations for recommendations, extracted from user-tailored Tripolar Argumentation Frameworks (TFs). We show that our method can be understood as a gradual semantics for TFs, exhibiting a desirable, albeit weak, property of balance. We also show experimentally that our method is competitive in generating correct predictions, compared with state-of-the-art methods, and illustrate how users can interact with the generated explanations to improve quality of recommendations.

The use of social media has become a regular habit for many and has changed the way people interact with each other. In this article, we focus on analyzing whether news headlines support tweets and whether reviews are deceptive by analyzing the interaction or the influence that these texts have on the others, thus exploiting contextual information. Concretely, we define a deep learning method for relation–based argument mining to extract argumentative relations of attack and support. We then use this method for determining whether news articles support tweets, a useful task in fact-checking settings, where determining agreement toward a statement is a useful step toward determining its truthfulness. Furthermore, we use our method for extracting bipolar argumentation frameworks from reviews to help detect whether they are deceptive. We show experimentally that our method performs well in both settings. In particular, in the case of deception detection, our method contributes a novel argumentative feature that, when used in combination with other features in standard supervised classifiers, outperforms the latter even on small data sets.

We propose a deep learning architecture to capture argumentative relations of attack and support from one piece of text to another, of the kind that naturally occur in a debate.The architecture uses two (unidirectional or bidirectional) Long Short-Term Memory networks and (trained or non-trained) word embeddings, and allows to considerably improve upon existing techniques that use syntactic features and supervised classifiers for the same form of (relation-based) argument mining.

Existing approaches using argumentation to aid or improve machine learning differ in the type of machine learning technique they consider, in their use of argumentation and in their choice of argumentation framework and semantics. This paper presents a survey of this relatively young field highlighting, in particular, its achievements to date, the applications it has been used for as well as the benefits brought about by the use of argumentation, with an eye towards its future.

The unstoppable rise of social networks and the web is facing a serious challenge: identifying the truthfulness of online opinions and reviews. We propose a system to identify two new argumentative features that a trained classifier can use to help determine whether a review is deceptive.