Counterfactual and Semifactual Explanations in Abstract Argumentation: Formal Foundations, Complexity and Computation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04081v1
• Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 07:27:27 GMT
• Title: Counterfactual and Semifactual Explanations in Abstract Argumentation: Formal Foundations, Complexity and Computation
• Authors: Gianvincenzo Alfano, Sergio Greco, Francesco Parisi, Irina Trubitsyna,
• Abstract summary: Argumentation-based systems often lack explainability while supporting decision-making processes. Counterfactual and semifactual explanations are interpretability techniques. We show that counterfactual and semifactual queries can be encoded in weak-constrained Argumentation Framework.
• Score: 19.799266797193344
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• 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.

Related papers

• Make LLMs better zero-shot reasoners: Structure-orientated autonomous reasoning [52.83539473110143]
  We introduce a novel structure-oriented analysis method to help Large Language Models (LLMs) better understand a question. To further improve the reliability in complex question-answering tasks, we propose a multi-agent reasoning system, Structure-oriented Autonomous Reasoning Agents (SARA) Extensive experiments verify the effectiveness of the proposed reasoning system. Surprisingly, in some cases, the system even surpasses few-shot methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T05:30:33Z)
• Even-if Explanations: Formal Foundations, Priorities and Complexity [18.126159829450028]
  We show that both linear and tree-based models are strictly more interpretable than neural networks. We introduce a preference-based framework that enables users to personalize explanations based on their preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-17T11:38:58Z)
• Generation of Explanations for Logic Reasoning [0.0]
  The research is centred on employing GPT-3.5-turbo to automate the analysis of fortiori arguments. This thesis makes significant contributions to the fields of artificial intelligence and logical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-22T15:22:04Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [50.69905074548764]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way. Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• Large Language Models as Analogical Reasoners [155.9617224350088]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting for language models demonstrates impressive performance across reasoning tasks. We introduce a new prompting approach, analogical prompting, designed to automatically guide the reasoning process of large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T00:57:26Z)
• Learnability with PAC Semantics for Multi-agent Beliefs [38.88111785113001]
  The tension between deduction and induction is perhaps the most fundamental issue in areas such as philosophy, cognition and artificial intelligence. Valiant recognised that the challenge of learning should be integrated with deduction. Although weaker than classical entailment, it allows for a powerful model-theoretic framework for answering queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T18:22:46Z)
• MetaLogic: Logical Reasoning Explanations with Fine-Grained Structure [129.8481568648651]
  We propose a benchmark to investigate models' logical reasoning capabilities in complex real-life scenarios. Based on the multi-hop chain of reasoning, the explanation form includes three main components. We evaluate the current best models' performance on this new explanation form.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-22T16:01:13Z)
• Admissibility in Strength-based Argumentation: Complexity and Algorithms (Extended Version with Proofs) [1.5828697880068698]
  We study the adaptation of admissibility-based semantics to Strength-based Argumentation Frameworks (StrAFs) Especially, we show that the strong admissibility defined in the literature does not satisfy a desirable property, namely Dung's fundamental lemma. We propose a translation in pseudo-Boolean constraints for computing (strong and weak) extensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-05T18:42:04Z)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)
• A Formalisation of Abstract Argumentation in Higher-Order Logic [77.34726150561087]
  We present an approach for representing abstract argumentation frameworks based on an encoding into classical higher-order logic. This provides a uniform framework for computer-assisted assessment of abstract argumentation frameworks using interactive and automated reasoning tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T10:45:59Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.