Counterfactual and Semifactual Explanations in Abstract Argumentation: Formal Foundations, Complexity and Computation
2405.04081
0
0
🎯
Abstract
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.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the use of counterfactual and semifactual reasoning in abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs), which are systems for modeling and analyzing arguments.
- Counterfactual and semifactual explanations are techniques that provide insights into the outcome of a machine learning model by generating alternative hypothetical instances.
- While these explanation methods have been studied extensively for machine learning models, less attention has been paid to their application in the context of argumentation systems.
Plain English Explanation
The paper investigates the use of counterfactual and semifactual explanations in abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs). AFs are a way of modeling and analyzing arguments, often used to support decision-making processes. However, these argumentation-based systems often lack explainability, meaning it can be difficult to understand how they arrive at their conclusions.
Counterfactual and semifactual explanations are techniques that can provide more insight into the reasoning of a model. Counterfactual explanations show what would need to change for a different outcome, while semifactual explanations show what could have happened under slightly different circumstances. These types of explanations have been studied extensively for machine learning models, but the paper explores how they can be applied to argumentation systems as well.
The key idea is to use counterfactual and semifactual reasoning to better understand the underlying argumentation process and the factors that influence the final conclusions. This could help make argumentation-based decision-making more transparent and interpretable, allowing users to better understand the logic behind the system's outputs.
Technical Explanation
The paper investigates the computational complexity of counterfactual and semifactual reasoning problems in the context of abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs). The authors show that these types of reasoning problems are generally harder to solve than classical argumentation problems, such as credulous and skeptical acceptance.
Specifically, the paper explores how counterfactual and semifactual queries can be encoded in a weak-constrained Argumentation Framework, and provides a computational strategy for solving these problems using Answer Set Programming (ASP) solvers.
The authors demonstrate how counterfactual and semifactual queries can be used to explain the outcomes of argumentation-based decision-making processes, similar to how these techniques have been applied in the machine learning domain. This could help [make argumentation-based systems more interpretable and transparent, allowing users to better understand the underlying reasoning.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a novel application of counterfactual and semifactual reasoning techniques to the domain of abstract Argumentation Frameworks, which is an important contribution. However, the authors acknowledge that the computational complexity of these reasoning problems can be quite high, which may limit their practical application in real-world argumentation systems.
Additionally, the paper does not extensively explore the potential limitations or caveats of using these techniques in the context of argumentation. For example, it may be challenging to generate meaningful counterfactual or semifactual scenarios in complex, real-world argumentation domains, where the underlying factors influencing the final conclusions can be highly interdependent and difficult to isolate.
Further research may be needed to better understand the strengths, weaknesses, and appropriate use cases of counterfactual and semifactual reasoning in argumentation-based systems, as well as to develop more efficient computational strategies for solving these types of problems.
Conclusion
This paper presents an interesting exploration of the use of counterfactual and semifactual reasoning techniques in the context of abstract Argumentation Frameworks. By providing more interpretable and transparent explanations of the reasoning behind argumentation-based decision-making processes, these methods could help make such systems more accessible and trustworthy for users.
While the computational complexity of these reasoning problems poses some challenges, the paper demonstrates the potential of this approach and lays the groundwork for further research in this area. Continued advancements in this field could have significant implications for the development of more explainable and accountable argumentation-based systems in a variety of domains.
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
📊
Even-if Explanations: Formal Foundations, Priorities and Complexity
Gianvincenzo Alfano, Sergio Greco, Domenico Mandaglio, Francesco Parisi, Reza Shahbazian, Irina Trubitsyna
0
0
EXplainable AI has received significant attention in recent years. Machine learning models often operate as black boxes, lacking explainability and transparency while supporting decision-making processes. Local post-hoc explainability queries attempt to answer why individual inputs are classified in a certain way by a given model. While there has been important work on counterfactual explanations, less attention has been devoted to semifactual ones. In this paper, we focus on local post-hoc explainability queries within the semifactual `even-if' thinking and their computational complexity among different classes of models, and show that both linear and tree-based models are strictly more interpretable than neural networks. After this, we introduce a preference-based framework that enables users to personalize explanations based on their preferences, both in the case of semifactuals and counterfactuals, enhancing interpretability and user-centricity. Finally, we explore the complexity of several interpretability problems in the proposed preference-based framework and provide algorithms for polynomial cases.
5/24/2024
Even-Ifs From If-Onlys: Are the Best Semi-Factual Explanations Found Using Counterfactuals As Guides?
Saugat Aryal, Mark T. Keane
0
0
Recently, counterfactuals using if-only explanations have become very popular in eXplainable AI (XAI), as they describe which changes to feature-inputs of a black-box AI system result in changes to a (usually negative) decision-outcome. Even more recently, semi-factuals using even-if explanations have gained more attention. They elucidate the feature-input changes that do not change the decision-outcome of the AI system, with a potential to suggest more beneficial recourses. Some semi-factual methods use counterfactuals to the query-instance to guide semi-factual production (so-called counterfactual-guided methods), whereas others do not (so-called counterfactual-free methods). In this work, we perform comprehensive tests of 8 semi-factual methods on 7 datasets using 5 key metrics, to determine whether counterfactual guidance is necessary to find the best semi-factuals. The results of these tests suggests not, but rather that computing other aspects of the decision space lead to better semi-factual XAI.
4/26/2024
Unifying Perspectives: Plausible Counterfactual Explanations on Global, Group-wise, and Local Levels
Patryk Wielopolski, Oleksii Furman, Jerzy Stefanowski, Maciej Zik{e}ba
0
0
Growing regulatory and societal pressures demand increased transparency in AI, particularly in understanding the decisions made by complex machine learning models. Counterfactual Explanations (CFs) have emerged as a promising technique within Explainable AI (xAI), offering insights into individual model predictions. However, to understand the systemic biases and disparate impacts of AI models, it is crucial to move beyond local CFs and embrace global explanations, which offer a~holistic view across diverse scenarios and populations. Unfortunately, generating Global Counterfactual Explanations (GCEs) faces challenges in computational complexity, defining the scope of global, and ensuring the explanations are both globally representative and locally plausible. We introduce a novel unified approach for generating Local, Group-wise, and Global Counterfactual Explanations for differentiable classification models via gradient-based optimization to address these challenges. This framework aims to bridge the gap between individual and systemic insights, enabling a deeper understanding of model decisions and their potential impact on diverse populations. Our approach further innovates by incorporating a probabilistic plausibility criterion, enhancing actionability and trustworthiness. By offering a cohesive solution to the optimization and plausibility challenges in GCEs, our work significantly advances the interpretability and accountability of AI models, marking a step forward in the pursuit of transparent AI.
5/29/2024
CFGs: Causality Constrained Counterfactual Explanations using goal-directed ASP
Sopam Dasgupta, Joaqu'in Arias, Elmer Salazar, Gopal Gupta
0
0
Machine learning models that automate decision-making are increasingly used in consequential areas such as loan approvals, pretrial bail approval, and hiring. Unfortunately, most of these models are black boxes, i.e., they are unable to reveal how they reach these prediction decisions. A need for transparency demands justification for such predictions. An affected individual might also desire explanations to understand why a decision was made. Ethical and legal considerations require informing the individual of changes in the input attribute (s) that could be made to produce a desirable outcome. Our work focuses on the latter problem of generating counterfactual explanations by considering the causal dependencies between features. In this paper, we present the framework CFGs, CounterFactual Generation with s(CASP), which utilizes the goal-directed Answer Set Programming (ASP) system s(CASP) to automatically generate counterfactual explanations from models generated by rule-based machine learning algorithms in particular. We benchmark CFGs with the FOLD-SE model. Reaching the counterfactual state from the initial state is planned and achieved using a series of interventions. To validate our proposal, we show how counterfactual explanations are computed and justified by imagining worlds where some or all factual assumptions are altered/changed. More importantly, we show how CFGs navigates between these worlds, namely, go from our initial state where we obtain an undesired outcome to the imagined goal state where we obtain the desired decision, taking into account the causal relationships among features.
5/28/2024