Notice: The reproducibility variables underlying each score are classified using an automated LLM-based pipeline, validated against a manually labeled dataset. LLM-based classification introduces uncertainty and potential bias; scores should be interpreted as estimates. Full accuracy metrics and methodology are described in [1].

Enhancing Statement Evaluation in Argumentation via Multi-labelling Systems

Authors: Pietro Baroni, Regis Riveret

JAIR 2019 | Venue PDF | LLM Run Details

Reproducibility Variable Result LLM Response
Research Type Theoretical we introduce multi-labelling systems, a generic formalism devoted to represent reasoning processes consisting of a sequence of labelling stages. In this context, two families of multi-labelling systems, called argument-focused and statement-focused approach, are identified and compared. Then they are shown to be able to encompass several prominent literature proposals as special cases, thereby enabling a systematic comparison evidencing their merits and limits. Further, we show that the proposed model supports tunability of statement justification by specifying a few alternative statement justification labellings, and we illustrate how they can be seamlessly integrated into different formalisms. The main contribution lies in a general framework, lacking in the previous literature, encompassing phases of argument and statement labellings in a unitary context. The formalism supports the identification of the two main classes of MLSs for argumentation mentioned above, of which we provide, as a further contribution, a formal comparison of expressiveness.
Researcher Affiliation Academia Pietro Baroni EMAIL DII, University of Brescia Brescia, Italy Regis Riveret EMAIL Data61, CSIRO Brisbane, Australia
Pseudocode No The paper defines abstract models, functions, and properties using formal mathematical notation and textual descriptions of processes (e.g., "the monolabelling Λ2-generator is such that...", "the polylabelling Λ2-generator is such that..."). It does not include any blocks explicitly labeled as "Pseudocode" or "Algorithm".
Open Source Code No The paper does not contain any statements about releasing source code, nor does it provide links to any code repositories for the methodology described.
Open Datasets No Example 1.1 (Adapted from Baroni, Governatori, Lam, & Riveret, 2016a; Baroni, Governatori, & Riveret, 2016b). Suppose that Dr. Smith says to you: Given your clinical data I conclude you are affected by disease D1 . Suppose then that another equally competent physician Dr. Jones says to you: Given your clinical data I conclude you are not affected by disease D1 . Your view on the justification of the statements s1 = I am affected by disease D1 and s1 = I am not affected by disease D1 may become quite uncertain." This is a hypothetical example for illustration, not an actual open dataset. No other datasets are mentioned or linked.
Dataset Splits No The paper focuses on theoretical modeling and uses hypothetical examples for illustration. It does not involve empirical experiments with datasets, and therefore no dataset split information is provided.
Hardware Specification No The paper is theoretical in nature, proposing a formal framework and analyzing its properties. It does not describe any experiments that would require specific hardware, and thus no hardware specifications are provided.
Software Dependencies No The paper focuses on theoretical contributions and formal modeling of argumentation systems. It does not describe any software implementation of its proposed multi-labelling systems, and therefore does not list any software dependencies with specific version numbers.
Experiment Setup No The paper is a theoretical work that introduces a formal framework and analyzes its properties using definitions, propositions, and illustrative examples. It does not describe any empirical experiments, and consequently, no experimental setup details like hyperparameters or system-level training settings are provided.