arxiv: 2602.14674 · v4 · submitted 2026-02-16 · 💻 cs.AI

Recognition: no theorem link

From User Preferences to Base Score Extraction Functions in Gradual Argumentation (with Appendix)

Aniol Civit , Antonio Rago , Antonio Andriella , Guillem Aleny\`a , Francesca Toni

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 21:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI

keywords gradual argumentationbase score extractionuser preferencesbipolar argumentation frameworkquantitative argumentationargumentation semanticsrobotics application

0 comments

The pith

Base Score Extraction Functions convert user preferences over arguments into numerical base scores for quantitative gradual argumentation.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces Base Score Extraction Functions to map users' ranked preferences over arguments directly to base scores. These functions take a Bipolar Argumentation Framework supplemented with preferences and produce a Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework ready for established gradual semantics. The mapping includes an explicit approximation of non-linearities typical in human preference judgments. This reduces the need for manual expert tuning of base scores in domains such as decision support and robotics. The authors provide an algorithm, desirable properties, and both theoretical and experimental validation of the approach.

Core claim

Base Score Extraction Functions provide a systematic mapping from user preferences over arguments to base scores. When applied to a Bipolar Argumentation Framework with added preferences, the functions yield a Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework that supports standard gradual semantics. The functions incorporate an approximation step for non-linear human preferences and come with an extraction algorithm and a set of desirable formal properties.

What carries the argument

Base Score Extraction Functions, which take ranked user preferences over arguments and output numerical base scores while approximating non-linear preference effects.

If this is right

A Bipolar Argumentation Framework with preferences can be directly converted into a Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework usable with existing gradual semantics tools.
An explicit algorithm exists for performing the preference-to-base-score extraction.
The non-linearity approximation step allows closer modeling of actual human judgments than linear mappings.
Experimental evaluation in a robotics setting shows the functions produce usable outcomes under standard gradual semantics.
Specific recommendations follow for choosing which gradual semantics to apply once base scores are obtained.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The method could reduce expert effort when deploying gradual argumentation in interactive AI systems such as recommendation or debate tools.
The same preference-to-score mapping might be tested for stability when arguments are added or removed dynamically.
Extensions could explore whether the extracted base scores remain consistent across different user groups or cultural contexts.
The approach opens a route to preference-driven updates of quantitative frameworks without re-deriving all scores from scratch.

Load-bearing premise

User preferences over arguments can be reliably captured and turned into stable base scores by these extraction functions, including their approximation of non-linearities.

What would settle it

A controlled user study in which base scores extracted by the functions produce final argument strengths that systematically mismatch the same users' direct ratings of the arguments' overall strength.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.14674 by Aniol Civit, Antonio Andriella, Antonio Rago, Francesca Toni, Guillem Aleny\`a.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Note that, to ensure that it is able to represent realistic user [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Influence of an argument’s base score and its supporters or attackers on the final argument strength under different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Gradual argumentation is a field of symbolic AI which is attracting attention for its ability to support transparent and contestable AI systems. It is considered a useful tool in domains such as decision-making, recommendation, debate analysis, and others. The outcomes in such domains are usually dependent on the arguments' base scores, which must be selected carefully. Often, this selection process requires user expertise and may not always be straightforward. On the other hand, organising the arguments by preference could simplify the task. In this work, we introduce \emph{Base Score Extraction Functions}, which provide a mapping from users' preferences over arguments to base scores. These functions can be applied to the arguments of a \emph{Bipolar Argumentation Framework} (BAF), supplemented with preferences, to obtain a \emph{Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework} (QBAF), allowing the use of well-established computational tools in gradual argumentation. We outline the desirable properties of base score extraction functions, discuss some design choices, and provide an algorithm for base score extraction. Our method incorporates an approximation of non-linearities in human preferences to allow for better approximation of the real ones. Finally, we evaluate our approach both theoretically and experimentally in a robotics setting, and offer recommendations for selecting appropriate gradual semantics in practice.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper introduces Base Score Extraction Functions to map user preferences to base scores in gradual argumentation, turning BAFs into QBAFs with an algorithm and robotics test.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that the authors define Base Score Extraction Functions to convert preferences over arguments into base scores. This lets you take a Bipolar Argumentation Framework with added preferences and produce a Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework that works with standard gradual semantics tools. They outline desirable properties for the functions, discuss design choices, give an explicit algorithm, and add a non-linearity approximation to handle more realistic preference patterns. The robotics experiment supplies a practical check in a decision-making setting, and they close with advice on choosing semantics. That combination of mapping method plus implementation detail is the concrete new piece. The work is solid on the construction side: the functions are built from stated properties rather than ad-hoc fitting, and the algorithm appears reproducible from the description. The robotics evaluation adds some external grounding, which is better than pure theory. Soft spots are limited but real. The non-linearity approximation introduces parameters that need selection, so the method is not fully automatic and outcomes could shift with different choices. The experimental section would benefit from more detail on how stable the results are across preference variations or different gradual semantics. The central mapping claim holds up on its own terms without obvious circularity or unsupported steps. This is for researchers already using gradual argumentation in symbolic AI, especially those working on transparent robotics or recommendation systems who want a systematic way to inject user input. A reader focused on making these frameworks easier to apply will get direct value from the algorithm and the semantics recommendations. It deserves peer review because the contribution is focused, the method is clearly specified, and the robotics test provides a starting point for validation even if further checks are needed.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces Base Score Extraction Functions as a mapping from user preferences over arguments to base scores. These functions are applied to Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (BAF) supplemented with preferences to produce Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAF). The work outlines desirable properties of such functions, discusses design choices including an approximation for non-linearities in preferences, supplies an extraction algorithm, and reports both theoretical discussion and an experimental evaluation in a robotics setting, along with recommendations for selecting gradual semantics.

Significance. If the extraction functions reliably produce stable and meaningful base scores from preferences, the approach could simplify the deployment of gradual argumentation in user-facing applications such as robotics decision-making and recommendation systems by reducing reliance on expert-specified base scores. The explicit incorporation of non-linearity approximation and the dual theoretical-experimental evaluation are strengths that would support broader adoption if the mapping is shown to be robust.

major comments (2)

[Section 3 (algorithm and properties)] The central construction defines Base Score Extraction Functions from stated desirable properties and applies them to BAF/QBAF, yet the manuscript does not provide a formal proof that the supplied algorithm satisfies all listed properties (e.g., monotonicity or normalization) for arbitrary preference orderings; without this, the claim that the functions yield a usable QBAF rests on an unverified step.
[Section 5 (experimental evaluation)] The robotics experiment is presented as validation, but the description does not report quantitative metrics (e.g., stability under perturbation of preferences or comparison against manually assigned base scores), nor does it specify which gradual semantics were used; this leaves the practical utility and the semantics recommendations unsupported by the reported data.

minor comments (3)

[Section 3.2] Notation for the non-linearity approximation parameters is introduced without an explicit table or equation reference, making it difficult to trace their effect through the algorithm.
[Section 4] The abstract states that 'theoretical properties' were performed, but the main text would benefit from a dedicated subsection or theorem numbering to separate claims from discussion.
[Section 2] A few references to prior QBAF semantics work appear to be missing from the related-work section; adding them would clarify the incremental contribution.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and for recognizing the potential of Base Score Extraction Functions in simplifying the deployment of gradual argumentation. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions planned for the next version of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Section 3 (algorithm and properties)] The central construction defines Base Score Extraction Functions from stated desirable properties and applies them to BAF/QBAF, yet the manuscript does not provide a formal proof that the supplied algorithm satisfies all listed properties (e.g., monotonicity or normalization) for arbitrary preference orderings; without this, the claim that the functions yield a usable QBAF rests on an unverified step.

Authors: We agree that an explicit formal proof would strengthen the presentation. The algorithm was constructed directly from the listed properties, with each step designed to enforce them (e.g., the normalization step ensures scores lie in [0,1] and the ordering step preserves monotonicity). However, the current manuscript provides only an informal verification through the construction. We will add a dedicated formal proof in the revised version showing that the algorithm satisfies all stated properties for arbitrary total and partial preference orderings. revision: yes
Referee: [Section 5 (experimental evaluation)] The robotics experiment is presented as validation, but the description does not report quantitative metrics (e.g., stability under perturbation of preferences or comparison against manually assigned base scores), nor does it specify which gradual semantics were used; this leaves the practical utility and the semantics recommendations unsupported by the reported data.

Authors: We acknowledge that the experimental section would benefit from additional quantitative detail. The robotics evaluation was intended to illustrate real-world applicability and to ground the semantics recommendations that follow from the theoretical analysis. We will revise the section to report concrete quantitative metrics, including stability under small perturbations of the input preferences and direct comparisons against manually assigned base scores. We will also explicitly name the gradual semantics employed in the reported runs. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper introduces Base Score Extraction Functions by outlining desirable properties, supplying an algorithm, and incorporating a non-linearity approximation to map user preferences over arguments in a BAF to base scores yielding a QBAF. No load-bearing step reduces a prediction or first-principles result to its own inputs by construction, nor invokes self-citation for uniqueness theorems or ansatzes. The central mapping is defined from stated properties and evaluated theoretically plus experimentally, remaining self-contained without circular reductions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the new extraction functions and the assumption that preferences can be mapped to scores; free parameters likely exist for the non-linearity approximation; no invented physical entities.

free parameters (1)

non-linearity approximation parameters
The paper explicitly mentions an approximation of non-linearities in human preferences, implying tunable parameters to fit the mapping.

axioms (1)

domain assumption User preferences over arguments can be organized into orderings that admit a numerical mapping to base scores
Invoked when defining the extraction functions that turn preferences into base scores for BAFs.

invented entities (1)

Base Score Extraction Functions no independent evidence
purpose: Provide mapping from user preferences to argument base scores
Newly defined construct introduced to bridge preferences and quantitative gradual argumentation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5540 in / 1359 out tokens · 24454 ms · 2026-05-15T21:53:03.894091+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

Emanuele Albini, Piyawat Lertvittayakumjorn, Antonio Rago, and Francesca Toni. 2020. Deep argumentative explanations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.05766 (2020)

work page arXiv 2020
[2]

Leila Amgoud. 2009. Argumentation for decision making. InArgumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, 301–320

work page 2009
[3]

Leila Amgoud and Jonathan Ben-Naim. 2018. Evaluation of arguments in weighted bipolar graphs.International Journal of Approximate Reasoning(2018), 39–55

work page 2018
[4]

Leila Amgoud, Jonathan Ben-Naim, Dragan Doder, and Srdjan Vesic. 2016. Rank- ing arguments with compensation-based semantics. In15th International Confer- ence on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR). 12–21

work page 2016
[5]

Leila Amgoud and Claudette Cayrol. 1998. On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation. InProceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. 1–7

work page 1998
[6]

Leila Amgoud and Henri Prade. 2009. Using arguments for making and explaining decisions.Artificial Intelligence(2009), 413–436

work page 2009
[7]

Leila Amgoud and Srdjan Vesic. 2014. Rich preference-based argumentation frameworks.International Journal of Approximate Reasoning(2014), 585–606

work page 2014
[8]

Katie Atkinson and Trevor Bench-Capon. 2021. Value-based argumentation. Journal of Applied Logics(2021), 1543–1588

work page 2021
[9]

Hamed Ayoobi, Nico Potyka, and Francesca Toni. 2023. SpArX: Sparse Argumen- tative Explanations for Neural Networks. InECAI - 26th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 149–156

work page 2023
[10]

Pietro Baroni, Antonio Rago, and Francesca Toni. 2019. From fine-grained properties to broad principles for gradual argumentation: A principled spectrum. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning(2019), 252–286

work page 2019
[11]

Pietro Baroni, Marco Romano, Francesca Toni, Marco Aurisicchio, and Giorgio Bertanza. 2015. Automatic evaluation of design alternatives with quantitative argumentation.Argument & Computation(2015), 24–49

work page 2015
[12]

Elisa Battaglia, Pietro Baroni, Antonio Rago, and Francesca Toni. 2024. Inte- grating user preferences into gradual bipolar argumentation for personalised decision support. InInternational Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management. Springer, 14–28

work page 2024
[13]

Gustavo A Bodanza and Esteban Freidin. 2023. Confronting value-based argu- mentation frameworks with people’s assessment of argument strength.Argument & Computation(2023), 247–273

work page 2023
[14]

Claudette Cayrol and Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex. 2005. On the acceptabil- ity of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. InEuropean Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty. Springer, 378–389

work page 2005
[15]

Aniol Civit, Antonio Andriella, Carles Sierra, and Guillem Alenyà. 2025. Multi- User Personalisation in Human-Robot Interaction: Resolving Preference Conflicts Using Gradual Argumentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.03576(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[16]

Aniol Civit, Antonio Rago, Antonio Andriella, Guillem Alenyà, and Francesca Toni. 2026. From User Preferences to Base Score Extraction Functions in Gradual Argumentation (with Appendix).arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.14674(2026)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[17]

Oana Cocarascu, Antonio Rago, and Francesca Toni. 2019. Extracting dialogi- cal explanations for review aggregations with argumentative dialogical agents. InProceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, 1261–1269

work page 2019
[18]

Louise Dupuis De Tarlé, Elise Bonzon, and Nicolas Maudet. 2022. Multiagent dynamics of gradual argumentation semantics. In21st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS)

work page 2022
[19]

Jérôme Delobelle and Serena Villata. 2019. Interpretability of Gradual Semantics in Abstract Argumentation. InSymbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, 15th European Conference, ECSQARU, Proceedings. 27–38

work page 2019
[20]

Phan Minh Dung. 1995. On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games. Artif. Intell.(1995), 321–358

work page 1995
[21]

Gabriel Freedman, Adam Dejl, Deniz Gorur, Xiang Yin, Antonio Rago, and Francesca Toni. 2025. Argumentative Large Language Models for Explainable and Contestable Claim Verification. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 14930–14939

work page 2025
[22]

Iason Gabriel. 2020. Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment.Minds and machines(2020), 411–437

work page 2020
[23]

Souhila Kaci, Leendert van Der Torre, and Serena Villata. 2018. Preference in abstract argumentation. InComputational models of argument. IOS Press, 405–412

work page 2018
[24]

Timotheus Kampik, Kristijonas Čyras, and José Ruiz Alarcón. 2024. Change in quantitative bipolar argumentation: sufficient, necessary, and counterfactual explanations.International Journal of Approximate Reasoning(2024), 109066

work page 2024
[25]

Francesco Leofante, Hamed Ayoobi, Adam Dejl, Gabriel Freedman, Deniz Gorur, Junqi Jiang, Guilherme Paulino-Passos, Antonio Rago, Anna Rapberger, Fabrizio Russo, et al. 2024. Contestable AI Needs Computational Argumentation. InPro- ceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. 888–896

work page 2024
[26]

Jean-Guy Mailly and Julien Rossit. 2020. Argument, I choose you! preferences and ranking semantics in abstract argumentation. InProceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. 647–651

work page 2020
[27]

Sanjay Modgil and Henry Prakken. 2013. A general account of argumentation with preferences.Artificial Intelligence(2013), 361–397

work page 2013
[28]

Gregory B Northcraft, Jared N Preston, Margaret A Neale, Peter H Kim, and Melissa C Thomas-Hunt. 1998. Non-linear preference functions and negotiated outcomes.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes(1998), 54–75

work page 1998
[29]

Nico Potyka. 2018. Continuous Dynamical Systems for Weighted Bipolar Argu- mentation.KR(2018), 148–57

work page 2018
[30]

Nico Potyka. 2021. Interpreting neural networks as quantitative argumentation frameworks. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 6463–6470

work page 2021
[31]

Antonio Rago, Oana Cocarascu, Joel Oksanen, and Francesca Toni. 2025. Argu- mentative review aggregation and dialogical explanations.ARTIFICIAL INTEL- LIGENCE(2025), 104291

work page 2025
[32]

Antonio Rago, Oana Cocarascu, and Francesca Toni. 2018. Argumentation-based recommendations: Fantastic explanations and how to find them. InProceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 1949–1955

work page 2018
[33]

Antonio Rago, Hengzhi Li, and Francesca Toni. 2023. Interactive Explanations by Conflict Resolution via Argumentative Exchanges. InProceedings of the In- ternational Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. 582–592

work page 2023
[34]

Antonio Rago and Francesca Toni. 2017. Quantitative argumentation debates with votes for opinion polling. InInternational Conference on Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. Springer, 369–385

work page 2017
[35]

A Rago, F Toni, M Aurisicchio, and P Baroni. 2016. Discontinuity-free decision support with quantitative argumentation debates. InProceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. 63–72

work page 2016
[36]

Antonio Rago, Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Son Tran, Francesca Toni, and William Yeoh. 2025. A Methodology for Incompleteness-Tolerant and Modular Gradual Semantics for Argumentative Statement Graphs. InProceedings of the 22nd In- ternational Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. 500–511

work page 2025
[37]

Anna Rapberger, Fabrizio Russo, Antonio Rago, and Francesca Toni. 2025. On Gradual Semantics for Assumption-Based Argumentation. InProceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. 512–522

work page 2025
[38]

Nihar B Shah, Sivaraman Balakrishnan, Joseph Bradley, Abhay Parekh, Kannan Ramchandran, and Martin Wainwright. 2014. When is it better to compare than to score?arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.6618(2014)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[39]

Carles Sierra, Nardine Osman, Pablo Noriega, Jordi Sabater-Mir, and Antoni Perelló. 2019. Value alignment: a formal approach.In Responsible Artificial Intelligence Agents Workshop (RAIA) in AAMAS(2019)

work page 2019
[40]

Nouredine Tamani and Madalina Croitoru. 2014. A quantitative preference-based structured argumentation system for decision support. InIEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE). IEEE, 1408–1415

work page 2014
[41]

Wietske Visser, Koen V Hindriks, and Catholijn M Jonker. 2011. An argumenta- tion framework for qualitative multi-criteria preferences. InInternational Work- shop on Theorie and Applications of Formal Argumentation. Springer, 85–98

work page 2011
[42]

Georgios N Yannakakis and John Hallam. 2011. Ranking vs. preference: a com- parative study of self-reporting. InInternational conference on affective computing and intelligent interaction. Springer, 437–446

work page 2011
[43]

Xiang Yin, Nico Potyka, Antonio Rago, Timotheus Kampik, and Francesca Toni. 2025. Contestability in Quantitative Argumentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.11323(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[44]

Xiang Yin, Nico Potyka, and Francesca Toni. 2024. CE-QArg: Counterfactual Explanations for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks. InProceed- ings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. 697–707. Appendix A PROOFS Here we give the proofs for the theoretical work in the paper. Proof for Proposition 1:...

work page 2024