On the Visualisation of Argumentation Graphs to Support Text Interpretation

The recent evolution in Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods, in particular in the field of argumentation mining, has the potential to transform the way we interact with text, supporting the interpretation and analysis of complex discourse and debates. Can a graphic visualisation of complex argumentation enable a more critical interpretation of the arguments? This study focuses on analysing the impact of argumentation graphs (AGs) compared with regular texts for supporting argument interpretation. We found that AGs outperformed the extrinsic metrics throughout most UEQ scales as well as the NASA-TLX workload in all the terms but not in temporal or physical demand. The AG model was liked by a more significant number of participants, despite the fact that both the text-based and AG models yielded comparable outcomes in the critical interpretation in terms of working memory and altering participants decisions. The interpretation process involves reference to argumentation schemes (linked to critical questions (CQs)) in AGs. Interestingly, we found that the participants chose more CQs (using argument schemes in AGs) when they were less familiar with the argument topics, making AG schemes on some scales (relatively) supportive of the interpretation process. Therefore, AGs were considered to deliver a more critical approach to argument interpretation, especially with unfamiliar topics. Based on the 25 participants conducted in this study, it appears that AG has demonstrated an overall positive effect on the argument interpretation process.

Assessing the communication gap between AI models and healthcare professionals: explainability, utility and trust in AI-driven clinical decision-making

This paper contributes with a pragmatic evaluation framework for explainable Machine Learning (ML) models for clinical decision support. The study revealed a more nuanced role for ML explanation models, when these are pragmatically embedded in the clinical context. Despite the general positive attitude of healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards explanations as a safety and trust mechanism, for a significant set of participants there were negative effects associated with confirmation bias, accentuating model over-reliance and increased effort to interact with the model. Also, contradicting one of its main intended functions, standard explanatory models showed limited ability to support a critical understanding of the limitations of the model. However, we found new significant positive effects which repositions the role of explanations within a clinical context: these include reduction of automation bias, addressing ambiguous clinical cases (cases where HCPs were not certain about their decision) and support of less experienced HCPs in the acquisition of new domain knowledge.