Applying Attribution Explanations in Truth-Discovery Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the application of attribution explanations in truth-discovery quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks.
- The researchers investigate how attribution explanations can be utilized to provide insights into the strength of arguments and the role of attacks and supports in these frameworks.
- The paper presents a method for generating counterfactual explanations for the strength of arguments in quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks.
Plain English Explanation
The paper focuses on a type of decision-making framework called a quantitative bipolar argumentation framework. In this framework, different arguments are presented, and the strength of each argument is determined based on how it is supported or attacked by other arguments.
The researchers wanted to understand why certain arguments are considered stronger than others in this framework. They used a technique called attribution explanations to provide insights into the factors that contribute to an argument's strength.
For example, an attribution explanation might reveal that an argument is considered strong because it is supported by several other strong arguments, but weakened because it is also attacked by a few influential arguments.
The researchers also developed a method to generate counterfactual explanations for the strength of arguments. These explanations show how the strength of an argument would change if certain supporting or attacking arguments were modified or removed.
Overall, this work aims to improve the transparency and interpretability of decision-making in quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks, which can be useful in applications like argumentative causal discovery.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a framework for applying attribution explanations in the context of truth-discovery quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks. These frameworks model the strength of arguments based on how they are supported or attacked by other arguments.
The researchers develop a method for generating counterfactual explanations for the strength of arguments within this framework. These counterfactual explanations show how the strength of an argument would change if certain supporting or attacking arguments were modified or removed.
The paper also explores how attribution explanations can be used to provide insights into the factors that contribute to an argument's strength, such as the influence of supporting or attacking arguments.
The proposed approach is evaluated through experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets, demonstrating its ability to generate meaningful explanations for the strength of arguments in quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a novel approach for providing explanations in the context of quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks, which can enhance the transparency and interpretability of decision-making in these frameworks.
One potential limitation is that the proposed methods rely on the accuracy and reliability of the underlying quantitative bipolar argumentation framework. If the framework itself has flaws or biases, the explanations generated may not fully capture the nuances of the decision-making process.
Additionally, the paper focuses on generating explanations for the strength of arguments, but does not explore the potential use of these explanations for improving the decision-making process or the underlying argumentation framework itself. Further research could investigate how the explanations could be used to refine the framework or guide the development of better decision-making algorithms.
Overall, the paper makes a valuable contribution to the field of argumentative causal discovery and provides a solid foundation for future work on enhancing the transparency and interpretability of decision-making in quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks.
Conclusion
This paper presents a framework for applying attribution explanations in the context of truth-discovery quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks. The researchers develop a method for generating counterfactual explanations that provide insights into the factors contributing to the strength of arguments within these frameworks.
The proposed approach has the potential to improve the transparency and interpretability of decision-making in quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks, which can be valuable in applications like argumentative causal discovery. Further research could explore how these explanations can be used to refine the underlying argumentation frameworks and decision-making algorithms.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Applying Attribution Explanations in Truth-Discovery Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks
Xiang Yin, Nico Potyka, Francesca Toni
Explaining the strength of arguments under gradual semantics is receiving increasing attention. For example, various studies in the literature offer explanations by computing the attribution scores of arguments or edges in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs). These explanations, known as Argument Attribution Explanations (AAEs) and Relation Attribution Explanations (RAEs), commonly employ removal-based and Shapley-based techniques for computing the attribution scores. While AAEs and RAEs have proven useful in several applications with acyclic QBAFs, they remain largely unexplored for cyclic QBAFs. Furthermore, existing applications tend to focus solely on either AAEs or RAEs, but do not compare them directly. In this paper, we apply both AAEs and RAEs, to Truth Discovery QBAFs (TD-QBAFs), which assess the trustworthiness of sources (e.g., websites) and their claims (e.g., the severity of a virus), and feature complex cycles. We find that both AAEs and RAEs can provide interesting explanations and can give non-trivial and surprising insights.
Read more9/10/2024
0
Explaining Arguments' Strength: Unveiling the Role of Attacks and Supports (Technical Report)
Xiang Yin, Potyka Nico, Francesca Toni
Quantitatively explaining the strength of arguments under gradual semantics has recently received increasing attention. Specifically, several works in the literature provide quantitative explanations by computing the attribution scores of arguments. These works disregard the importance of attacks and supports, even though they play an essential role when explaining arguments' strength. In this paper, we propose a novel theory of Relation Attribution Explanations (RAEs), adapting Shapley values from game theory to offer fine-grained insights into the role of attacks and supports in quantitative bipolar argumentation towards obtaining the arguments' strength. We show that RAEs satisfy several desirable properties. We also propose a probabilistic algorithm to approximate RAEs efficiently. Finally, we show the application value of RAEs in fraud detection and large language models case studies.
Read more5/13/2024
0
CE-QArg: Counterfactual Explanations for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (Technical Report)
Xiang Yin, Nico Potyka, Francesca Toni
There is a growing interest in understanding arguments' strength in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs). Most existing studies focus on attribution-based methods that explain an argument's strength by assigning importance scores to other arguments but fail to explain how to change the current strength to a desired one. To solve this issue, we introduce counterfactual explanations for QBAFs. We discuss problem variants and propose an iterative algorithm named Counterfactual Explanations for Quantitative bipolar Argumentation frameworks (CE-QArg). CE-QArg can identify valid and cost-effective counterfactual explanations based on two core modules, polarity and priority, which help determine the updating direction and magnitude for each argument, respectively. We discuss some formal properties of our counterfactual explanations and empirically evaluate CE-QArg on randomly generated QBAFs.
Read more7/12/2024
0
When factorization meets argumentation: towards argumentative explanations
Jinfeng Zhong, Elsa Negre
Factorization-based models have gained popularity since the Netflix challenge {(2007)}. Since that, various factorization-based models have been developed and these models have been proven to be efficient in predicting users' ratings towards items. A major concern is that explaining the recommendations generated by such methods is non-trivial because the explicit meaning of the latent factors they learn are not always clear. In response, we propose a novel model that combines factorization-based methods with argumentation frameworks (AFs). The integration of AFs provides clear meaning at each stage of the model, enabling it to produce easily understandable explanations for its recommendations. In this model, for every user-item interaction, an AF is defined in which the features of items are considered as arguments, and the users' ratings towards these features determine the strength and polarity of these arguments. This perspective allows our model to treat feature attribution as a structured argumentation procedure, where each calculation is marked with explicit meaning, enhancing its inherent interpretability. Additionally, our framework seamlessly incorporates side information, such as user contexts, leading to more accurate predictions. We anticipate at least three practical applications for our model: creating explanation templates, providing interactive explanations, and generating contrastive explanations. Through testing on real-world datasets, we have found that our model, along with its variants, not only surpasses existing argumentation-based methods but also competes effectively with current context-free and context-aware methods.
Read more5/15/2024