When factorization meets argumentation: towards argumentative explanations

Read original: arXiv:2405.08131 - Published 5/15/2024 by Jinfeng Zhong, Elsa Negre

When factorization meets argumentation: towards argumentative explanations

Overview

The paper explores the combination of factorization techniques and argumentation theory to develop argumentative explanations for AI systems.
It builds on previous work on counterfactual explanations and contestable AI systems.
The goal is to provide more transparent and understandable explanations for AI decisions that can be scrutinized and debated.

Plain English Explanation

The paper discusses a new approach to explaining the decisions made by AI systems. Traditionally, AI models can be complex and opaque, making it difficult for humans to understand how they arrived at a particular conclusion. The researchers propose combining two key ideas to address this challenge:

Factorization: Breaking down the AI's decision-making process into smaller, more interpretable components. This allows for a more detailed and transparent explanation of the reasoning behind the decision.
Argumentation: Presenting the explanation in the form of an argument, with premises and a conclusion. This makes the explanation more structured and easier for humans to follow and critically evaluate.

By combining these two approaches, the researchers aim to create "argumentative explanations" that are both detailed and understandable. The explanations would not only inform users about the AI's decision but also allow them to scrutinize the reasoning and potentially offer counterarguments or alternative perspectives.

This approach builds on previous work in the field of counterfactual explanations, which focuses on explaining AI decisions by considering how the output would change if certain inputs were different. The researchers also draw on the idea of contestable AI systems, where the AI's reasoning can be challenged and debated by users.

The overall goal is to make AI systems more transparent and accountable, allowing users to better understand and trust the decisions made by these powerful technologies.

Technical Explanation

The paper proposes a framework for generating "argumentative explanations" that combine factorization techniques and argumentation theory. The key steps are:

Factorization: The AI's decision-making process is broken down into a set of latent factors that contribute to the final output. This allows for a more detailed and interpretable explanation of the reasoning behind the decision.
Argument Generation: The factorized components are then used to construct an argument, with each factor serving as a premise that leads to the final conclusion (the AI's decision). This argument can be presented to the user in a structured and easily understandable format.
Argument Evaluation: Users can then critically evaluate the argument, examining the validity of the premises and the strength of the overall reasoning. This opens the door for users to offer counterarguments or alternative perspectives.

The researchers demonstrate the feasibility of this approach through experiments on a fact-verification task. They show that the argumentative explanations generated by their framework are more detailed and transparent compared to traditional "black-box" AI models.

The paper also discusses the potential for this approach to be adapted to different domains and tasks, as well as the possibility of adapting the explanations to individual users based on their background and needs.

Critical Analysis

The paper presents a promising approach to improving the transparency and accountability of AI systems. By combining factorization and argumentation, the researchers aim to provide explanations that are both detailed and understandable to users. This is an important step towards building more contestable and explainable AI systems.

However, the paper also acknowledges several limitations and areas for further research:

Domain-Specificity: The current framework is demonstrated on a fact-verification task and may require adaptation to work effectively in other domains with different decision-making processes.
User Interaction: While the paper discusses the potential for user-specific explanations, the current framework does not fully explore how users might interact with and respond to the argumentative explanations.
Scalability: Generating detailed, structured arguments for complex AI decisions may become computationally challenging as the systems become more sophisticated. The researchers may need to explore more efficient techniques for argument generation and evaluation.
Potential Biases: Like any AI-powered system, the argumentative explanations could potentially inherit or amplify biases present in the underlying data or model. Careful evaluation and monitoring would be necessary to ensure the explanations are fair and unbiased.

Overall, the paper presents an intriguing and promising approach to improving AI transparency and accountability. Further research and real-world deployment of this framework could lead to significant advancements in the field of explainable AI.

Conclusion

The paper explores a novel approach to generating "argumentative explanations" for AI systems by combining factorization techniques and argumentation theory. This approach aims to provide users with more detailed, transparent, and understandable explanations of the reasoning behind AI decisions, allowing for greater scrutiny and critical evaluation.

The key contributions of the paper are:

The development of a framework that breaks down the AI's decision-making process into interpretable factors and then structures these factors into a logical argument.
The demonstration of this approach on a fact-verification task, showing the potential for generating more detailed and transparent explanations compared to traditional "black-box" AI models.
The discussion of the broader implications and potential adaptations of this framework to different domains and user needs, as well as the challenges and limitations that need to be addressed.

Overall, this research represents an important step towards building more contestable and explainable AI systems that can be better understood and trusted by users. As AI continues to play an increasingly significant role in our lives, developing such transparent and accountable decision-making systems will be crucial for ensuring the responsible and ethical deployment of these powerful technologies.

This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Follow @aimodelsfyi on 𝕏 →

Related Papers

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.

5/15/2024

Contrastive Factor Analysis

Zhibin Duan, Tiansheng Wen, Yifei Wang, Chen Zhu, Bo Chen, Mingyuan Zhou

Factor analysis, often regarded as a Bayesian variant of matrix factorization, offers superior capabilities in capturing uncertainty, modeling complex dependencies, and ensuring robustness. As the deep learning era arrives, factor analysis is receiving less and less attention due to their limited expressive ability. On the contrary, contrastive learning has emerged as a potent technique with demonstrated efficacy in unsupervised representational learning. While the two methods are different paradigms, recent theoretical analysis has revealed the mathematical equivalence between contrastive learning and matrix factorization, providing a potential possibility for factor analysis combined with contrastive learning. Motivated by the interconnectedness of contrastive learning, matrix factorization, and factor analysis, this paper introduces a novel Contrastive Factor Analysis framework, aiming to leverage factor analysis's advantageous properties within the realm of contrastive learning. To further leverage the interpretability properties of non-negative factor analysis, which can learn disentangled representations, contrastive factor analysis is extended to a non-negative version. Finally, extensive experimental validation showcases the efficacy of the proposed contrastive (non-negative) factor analysis methodology across multiple key properties, including expressiveness, robustness, interpretability, and accurate uncertainty estimation.

8/2/2024

Towards a Framework for Evaluating Explanations in Automated Fact Verification

Neema Kotonya, Francesca Toni

As deep neural models in NLP become more complex, and as a consequence opaque, the necessity to interpret them becomes greater. A burgeoning interest has emerged in rationalizing explanations to provide short and coherent justifications for predictions. In this position paper, we advocate for a formal framework for key concepts and properties about rationalizing explanations to support their evaluation systematically. We also outline one such formal framework, tailored to rationalizing explanations of increasingly complex structures, from free-form explanations to deductive explanations, to argumentative explanations (with the richest structure). Focusing on the automated fact verification task, we provide illustrations of the use and usefulness of our formalization for evaluating explanations, tailored to their varying structures.

5/21/2024

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.

9/10/2024