Being aware of frames, i.e., the aspect-based grouping of arguments, is crucial in applications that build upon a corpus of arguments, allowing, among others, biases and filter bubbles to be mitigated. However, manually identifying and naming these frames can be time-consuming and therefore not feasible for larger datasets. Within this work, we present a sequential three-step pipeline for automating this task in a data-driven manner. After embedding the arguments, we apply clustering algorithms for identifying the frames and subsequently, utilize methods from the field of cluster labeling to name the frames. The proposed approach is tailored towards the requirements of practical applications where arguments may not be easily split into their argumentative units and hence can belong to more than one frame. Performing a component-wise evaluation, we determine the best-performing configuration of the pipeline. Our results indicate that frames should be identified by performing overlapping and not exclusive clustering and the naming of frames can be accomplished best by extracting aspect terms and weighting them with c-TF-IDF.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at generating fluent text but struggle with context sensitivity, logical reasoning, and personalization without extensive fine-tuning. This paper presents a logical modulator: an adaptable communication layer between Knowledge Graphs (KGs) and LLMs as a way to address these limitations. Unlike direct KG-LLM integrations, our modulator is domain-agnostic and incorporates logical dependencies and commonsense reasoning in order to achieve contextual personalization. By enhancing KG interaction, this method will produce linguistically coherent and logically sound outputs, increasing interpretability and reliability in generative AI.

Explanatory dialogue systems serve as intuitive interface between non-expert users and explainable AI (XAI) systems. The interaction with these kind of systems benefits especially from the integration of structured domain knowledge, e.g., by means of bipolar argumentation trees. So far, these domain-specific structures need to be created manually, therewith impairing the flexibility of the system with respect to the domain. We address this limitation by adapting an existing pipeline for topic-independent acquisition of argumentation trees in the field of persuasive, argumentative dialogue to the area of explanatory dialogue. This shift is achieved by a) introducing and investigating different formulations of auxiliary claims per feature of the explanation of the AI model, b) exploring the influence of pre-grouping of the arguments with respect to the feature they address, c) suggesting adaptions to the existing algorithm of the pipeline for obtaining a tree structure, and d) utilizing a new approach for determining the type of the relationship between the arguments. Through a step-wise expert evaluation for the domain titanic survival, we identify the best performing variant of our pipeline. With this variant we conduct a user study comparing the automatically generated argumentation trees against their manually created counterpart in the domains titanic survival and credit acquisition. This assessment of the suitability of the generated argumentation trees for a later integration into dialogue-based XAI systems as domain knowledge yields promising results.

Despite the remarkable progress in the field of computational argumentation, dialogue systems concerned with argumentative tasks often rely on structured knowledge about arguments and their relations. Since the manual acquisition of these argument structures is highly time-consuming, the corresponding systems are inflexible regarding the topics they can discuss. To address this issue, we propose a combination of argumentative dialogue systems with argument search technology that enables a system to discuss any topic on which the search engine is able to find suitable arguments. Our approach utilizes supervised learning-based relation classification to map the retrieved arguments into a general tree structure for use in dialogue systems. We evaluate the approach with a state of the art search engine and a recently introduced dialogue model in an extensive user study with respect to the dialogue coherence. The results vary between the investigated topics (and hence depend on the quality of the underlying data) but are in some instances surprisingly close to the results achieved with a manually annotated argument structure.