Enhancing Conflict Resolution in Language Models via Abstract Argumentation
Zhaoqun Li, Xiaotong Fang, Chen Chen, Mengze Li, Beishui Liao

TL;DR
This paper enhances language models' ability to resolve conflicts in dialogue by integrating abstract argumentation frameworks and explanations, leading to better generalization and transparency.
Contribution
It introduces a dataset and training method combining formal argumentation with LLMs, improving conflict resolution and interpretability in dialogue systems.
Findings
Models trained with explanations outperform those trained without.
Self-explanation capabilities improve transparency and conflict resolution.
Chain-of-thought approaches are less effective for conflict resolution.
Abstract
In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have made significant advancements in developing human-like and engaging dialogue systems. However, in tasks such as consensus-building and persuasion, LLMs often struggle to resolve conflicts arising from incomplete or inconsistent information, revealing their limitations in real-world applications. Given these limitations, abstract argumentation, a specialized logical framework designed to resolve conflicts and inconsistencies, becomes particularly relevant. In this paper, we aim to enhance the conflict-solving capabilities of LLMs by leveraging formal abstract argumentation, integrating language model learning with symbolic computation. To achieve this, we develop and curate a dataset comprising diverse abstract argumentation frameworks, accompanied by detailed explanations of the argument acceptability computation process. Subsequently,…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation · Topic Modeling
