Representation, justification, and explanation in a value-driven agent: an argumentation-based approach
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A series of works [13, 15, 16, 55, 61, 69] refer to justifications as ways of ensuring that a decision is good (in contrast to understanding a decision), which is in line with the definition proposed in this paper.
“However, a series of works [13, 15, 16, 55, 61, 69], refer to justifications as ways of ensuring that a decision is good (in contrast to understanding a decision), which is in line with the definition proposed in this paper.”
From Beyond explainability: justifiability and contestability of algorithmic decision systems (2022) · cites this paper as [55]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 35 · Cited by 18
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Arkoudas, K., Bringsjord, S., Bello, P.: Toward ethical robots via mechanized deontic logic. In: AAAI fall symposium on machine ethics, pp. 17-23 (2005)
- Baroni, P., Gabbay, D., Giacomin, M., van der Torre, L. (eds.): Handbook of Formal Argumentation. College Publications, Lon- don (2018)
- Baum, K., Hermanns, H., Speith, T.: From machine ethics to machine explainability and back. In: International symposium on artificial intelligence and mathematics, ISAIM 2018, Fort Laud- erdale, Florida, USA, January 3-5, 2018 (2018). http://isaim 2018. cs.virgi nia.edu/paper s/ISAIM 2018_Ethic s_Baum_etal.pdf
- Liao, B.: Efficient Computation of Argumentation Semantics. Intelligent systems series. Academic Press, New York (2014)
- Authors
- Liao, B., Anderson, M., & Anderson, S. L.
- Affiliations
- Zhejiang University (CN)
- University of Hartford (US)
- University of Connecticut (US)
- Corresponding author
- Liao, Beishui
- Venue
- AI and Ethics
- Published
- 2020-10-06
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 5-19
- ISSN
- 2730-5953 (ISSN-L)
- 2730-5961
- OpenAlex
- W3085927132
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- AI and Ethics (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province (LY20F030014)
- Major Program of National Fund of Philosophy and Social Science of China (18ZDA290, 17ZDA026)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
- Keywords
- explainable AI, argumentation, assumption-based argumentation, justification of decisions, practical reasoning, epistemic reasoning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
