Argumentation for Explainable Scheduling (Full Paper with Proofs)
Mathematical optimization offers highly-effective tools for finding solutions for problems with well-defined goals, notably scheduling. However, optimization solvers are often unexplainable black boxes whose solutions are inaccessible to users and which users cannot interact with. We define a novel paradigm using argumentation to empower the interaction between optimization solvers and users, supported by tractable explanations which certify or refute solutions. A solution can be from a solver or of interest to a user (in the context of 'what-if' scenarios). Specifically, we define argumentative and natural language explanations for why a schedule is (not) feasible, (not) efficient or (not) satisfying fixed user decisions, based on models of the fundamental makespan scheduling problem in terms of abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). We define three types of AFs, whose stable extensions are in one-to-one correspondence with schedules that are feasible, efficient and satisfying fixed decisions, respectively. We extract the argumentative explanations from these AFs and the natural language explanations from the argumentative ones.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Abstract ArgumentationSchedulingSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Notes on Abstract Argumentation Theory
This note reviews Section 2 of Dung's seminal 1995 paper on abstract argumentation theory. In particular, we clarify and make explicit all of the proofs mentioned therein, and provide more examples to illustrate the defi…
Abstract ArgumentationFormal Proofs as Structured Explanations: Proposing Several Tasks on Explainable Natural Language Inference
In this position paper, we propose a way of exploiting formal proofs to put forward several explainable natural language inference (NLI) tasks. The formal proofs will be produced by a reliable and high-performing logic-b…
Natural Language InferencePositionArgumentation Theoretical Frameworks for Explainable Artificial Intelligence
This paper discusses four major argumentation theoretical frameworks with respect to their use in support of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). We consider these frameworks as useful tools for both system-centred…
Explainable artificial intelligenceExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)ArgRAG: Explainable Retrieval Augmented Generation using Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enhances large language models by incorporating external knowledge, yet suffers from critical limitations in high-stakes domains -- namely, sensitivity to noisy or contradictory evide…
Fact VerificationAbduction and Argumentation for Explainable Machine Learning: A Position Survey
This paper presents Abduction and Argumentation as two principled forms for reasoning, and fleshes out the fundamental role that they can play within Machine Learning. It reviews the state-of-the-art work over the past f…
BIG-bench Machine LearningPositionSurvey