CE-QArg: Counterfactual Explanations for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (Technical Report)
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper proposes a method called CE-QArg (Counterfactual Explanations for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks) to generate counterfactual explanations for the strength of arguments in a quantitative bipolar argumentation framework.
- Counterfactual explanations provide insights into how the output of a model or system would change if certain inputs were modified, helping to improve the transparency and interpretability of the system.
- The authors demonstrate the effectiveness of their approach through experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets, and compare it to existing methods for generating counterfactual explanations.
Plain English Explanation
In the world of artificial intelligence (AI) and decision-making systems, it's important to understand how these systems arrive at their conclusions. Counterfactual explanations can provide valuable insights by showing how the output of a system would change if certain input factors were different.
This paper focuses on developing a method called CE-QArg to generate counterfactual explanations for the strength of arguments in a quantitative bipolar argumentation framework. In this type of framework, arguments can have both supporting and attacking relationships, and their strengths can be quantified.
The key idea behind CE-QArg is to identify the smallest changes to the input arguments that would result in a significant change in the strength of a target argument. By doing this, the method can highlight the most influential factors that contribute to the strength of an argument, making the system more transparent and easier to understand.
The researchers tested their approach on both synthetic and real-world datasets, and compared it to other methods for generating counterfactual explanations. The results show that CE-QArg can effectively identify the most important factors that determine the strength of arguments, providing users with valuable insights and a better understanding of the decision-making process.
Technical Explanation
The authors propose a method called CE-QArg (Counterfactual Explanations for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks) to generate counterfactual explanations for the strength of arguments in a quantitative bipolar argumentation framework.
In a quantitative bipolar argumentation framework, arguments can have both supporting and attacking relationships, and their strengths can be quantified. The goal of CE-QArg is to identify the smallest changes to the input arguments that would result in a significant change in the strength of a target argument.
The key steps of the CE-QArg method are:
- Input: The method takes as input a quantitative bipolar argumentation framework, a target argument, and a threshold for the desired change in the strength of the target argument.
- Counterfactual Generation: The method uses an optimization-based approach to find the smallest changes to the input arguments that would result in the desired change in the strength of the target argument.
- Counterfactual Explanation: The method presents the changes to the input arguments as a counterfactual explanation, highlighting the most influential factors that contribute to the strength of the target argument.
The authors evaluate their approach on both synthetic and real-world datasets, and compare it to other methods for generating counterfactual explanations, such as FACE and PIRE. The results show that CE-QArg can effectively identify the most important factors that determine the strength of arguments, providing users with valuable insights and a better understanding of the decision-making process.
Critical Analysis
The authors have made a valuable contribution by proposing a method to generate counterfactual explanations for the strength of arguments in a quantitative bipolar argumentation framework. This type of explanation can be particularly useful in domains where decision-making processes need to be transparent and interpretable, such as in legal or medical applications.
One potential limitation of the approach is that it relies on an optimization-based method to find the smallest changes to the input arguments that would result in a desired change in the strength of the target argument. This approach may be computationally expensive, especially for larger argumentation frameworks. The authors acknowledge this limitation and suggest that future work could explore more efficient optimization techniques or alternative approaches to counterfactual generation.
Additionally, the authors only evaluate their method on synthetic and real-world datasets, and it would be interesting to see how it performs in more diverse and complex real-world scenarios. Further research could also explore the integration of CE-QArg with other explanation techniques, such as semifactual explanations, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the decision-making process.
Overall, the CE-QArg method represents a promising step towards improving the transparency and interpretability of decision-making systems that rely on quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks. As AI-powered systems become more pervasive in our lives, the development of such explanation techniques will be crucial for building trust and ensuring the responsible use of these technologies.
Conclusion
The CE-QArg method proposed in this paper offers a novel approach to generating counterfactual explanations for the strength of arguments in a quantitative bipolar argumentation framework. By identifying the smallest changes to the input arguments that would result in a significant change in the strength of a target argument, CE-QArg can provide valuable insights into the most influential factors that contribute to the decision-making process.
The authors' experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of their approach, and the potential for counterfactual explanations to improve the transparency and interpretability of AI-powered systems. As the use of such systems continues to grow, the development of explanation techniques like CE-QArg will be crucial for building trust and ensuring the responsible deployment of these technologies in domains where decision-making needs to be well-understood and justified.
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
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
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
Counterfactual and Semifactual Explanations in Abstract Argumentation: Formal Foundations, Complexity and Computation
Gianvincenzo Alfano, Sergio Greco, Francesco Parisi, Irina Trubitsyna
Explainable Artificial Intelligence and Formal Argumentation have received significant attention in recent years. Argumentation-based systems often lack explainability while supporting decision-making processes. Counterfactual and semifactual explanations are interpretability techniques that provide insights into the outcome of a model by generating alternative hypothetical instances. While there has been important work on counterfactual and semifactual explanations for Machine Learning models, less attention has been devoted to these kinds of problems in argumentation. In this paper, we explore counterfactual and semifactual reasoning in abstract Argumentation Framework. We investigate the computational complexity of counterfactual- and semifactual-based reasoning problems, showing that they are generally harder than classical argumentation problems such as credulous and skeptical acceptance. Finally, we show that counterfactual and semifactual queries can be encoded in weak-constrained Argumentation Framework, and provide a computational strategy through ASP solvers.
Read more5/8/2024
0
Counterfactual Explanations with Probabilistic Guarantees on their Robustness to Model Change
Ignacy Stk{e}pka, Mateusz Lango, Jerzy Stefanowski
Counterfactual explanations (CFEs) guide users on how to adjust inputs to machine learning models to achieve desired outputs. While existing research primarily addresses static scenarios, real-world applications often involve data or model changes, potentially invalidating previously generated CFEs and rendering user-induced input changes ineffective. Current methods addressing this issue often support only specific models or change types, require extensive hyperparameter tuning, or fail to provide probabilistic guarantees on CFE robustness to model changes. This paper proposes a novel approach for generating CFEs that provides probabilistic guarantees for any model and change type, while offering interpretable and easy-to-select hyperparameters. We establish a theoretical framework for probabilistically defining robustness to model change and demonstrate how our BetaRCE method directly stems from it. BetaRCE is a post-hoc method applied alongside a chosen base CFE generation method to enhance the quality of the explanation beyond robustness. It facilitates a transition from the base explanation to a more robust one with user-adjusted probability bounds. Through experimental comparisons with baselines, we show that BetaRCE yields robust, most plausible, and closest to baseline counterfactual explanations.
Read more8/12/2024