CE-QArg: Counterfactual Explanations for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (Technical Report)
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.08497v1
- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 13:34:11 GMT
- Title: CE-QArg: Counterfactual Explanations for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (Technical Report)
- Authors: Xiang Yin, Nico Potyka, Francesca Toni,
- Abstract summary: We 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.
We discuss some formal properties of our counterfactual explanations and empirically evaluate CE-QArg on randomly generated QBAFs.
- Score: 18.505289553533164
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
- Abstract: 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.
Related papers
- Counterfactual and Semifactual Explanations in Abstract Argumentation: Formal Foundations, Complexity and Computation [19.799266797193344]
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.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-07T07:27:27Z) - Explaining Arguments' Strength: Unveiling the Role of Attacks and Supports (Technical Report) [13.644164255651472]
We propose a novel theory of Relation Attribution Explanations (RAEs)
RAEs offer fine-grained insights into the role of attacks and supports in quantitative bipolar argumentation towards obtaining the arguments' strength.
We show the application value of RAEs in fraud detection and large language models case studies.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-22T16:02:48Z) - Mitigating Misleading Chain-of-Thought Reasoning with Selective Filtering [59.495717939664246]
Large language models have manifested remarkable capabilities by leveraging chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning techniques to solve intricate questions.
We propose a novel approach called the selective filtering reasoner (SelF-Reasoner) that assesses the entailment relationship between the question and the candidate reasoning chain.
SelF-Reasoner improves the fine-tuned T5 baseline consistently over the ScienceQA, ECQA, and LastLetter tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-28T06:28:35Z) - DetermLR: Augmenting LLM-based Logical Reasoning from Indeterminacy to Determinacy [76.58614128865652]
We propose DetermLR, a novel perspective that rethinks the reasoning process as an evolution from indeterminacy to determinacy.
First, we categorize known conditions into two types: determinate and indeterminate premises This provides an oveall direction for the reasoning process and guides LLMs in converting indeterminate data into progressively determinate insights.
We automate the storage and extraction of available premises and reasoning paths with reasoning memory, preserving historical reasoning details for subsequent reasoning steps.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-28T10:05:51Z) - Some Options for Instantiation of Bipolar Argument Graphs with Deductive
Arguments [4.111899441919164]
A bipolar argument graph is a directed graph where each node denotes an argument, and each arc denotes the influence of one argument on another.
In a bipolar argument graph, each argument is atomic and so it has no internal structure.
This paper presents a framework based on the use of logical arguments to instantiate bipolar argument graphs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-08T16:22:27Z) - Argument Attribution Explanations in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation
Frameworks (Technical Report) [17.9926469947157]
We propose a novel theory of Argument Explanations (AAEs) by incorporating the spirit of feature attribution from machine learning.
AAEs are used to determine the influence of arguments towards topic arguments of interest.
We study desirable properties of AAEs, including some new ones and some partially adapted from the literature to our setting.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-25T15:36:33Z) - Explanation Selection Using Unlabeled Data for Chain-of-Thought
Prompting [80.9896041501715]
Explanations that have not been "tuned" for a task, such as off-the-shelf explanations written by nonexperts, may lead to mediocre performance.
This paper tackles the problem of how to optimize explanation-infused prompts in a blackbox fashion.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-09T18:02:34Z) - 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) - Maieutic Prompting: Logically Consistent Reasoning with Recursive
Explanations [71.2950434944196]
We develop Maieutic Prompting, which infers a correct answer to a question even from the noisy and inconsistent generations of language models.
Maieutic Prompting achieves up to 20% better accuracy than state-of-the-art prompting methods.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-05-24T06:36:42Z) - Argumentative Explanations for Pattern-Based Text Classifiers [15.81939090849456]
We focus on explanations for a specific interpretable model, namely pattern-based logistic regression (PLR) for binary text classification.
We propose AXPLR, a novel explanation method using (forms of) computational argumentation to generate explanations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-05-22T21:16:49Z) - From Checking to Inference: Actual Causality Computations as
Optimization Problems [79.87179017975235]
We present a novel approach to formulate different notions of causal reasoning, over binary acyclic models, as optimization problems.
We show that both notions are efficiently automated. Using models with more than $8000$ variables, checking is computed in a matter of seconds, with MaxSAT outperforming ILP in many cases.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-06-05T10:56:52Z)
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.