Debate Dynamics for Human-comprehensible Fact-checking on Knowledge
  Graphs
  We propose a novel method for fact-checking on knowledge graphs based on
debate dynamics. The underlying idea is to frame the task of triple
classification as a debate game between two reinforcement learning agents which
extract arguments -- paths in the knowledge graph -- with the goal to justify
the fact being true (thesis) or the fact being false (antithesis),
respectively. Based on these arguments, a binary classifier, referred to as the
judge, decides whether the fact is true or false. The two agents can be
considered as sparse feature extractors that present interpretable evidence for
either the thesis or the antithesis. In contrast to black-box methods, the
arguments enable the user to gain an understanding for the decision of the
judge. Moreover, our method allows for interactive reasoning on knowledge
graphs where the users can raise additional arguments or evaluate the debate
taking common sense reasoning and external information into account. Such
interactive systems can increase the acceptance of various AI applications
based on knowledge graphs and can further lead to higher efficiency,
robustness, and fairness.
