Change in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation: Sufficient, Necessary, and Counterfactual Explanations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.18215v1
• Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2025 20:26:47 GMT
• Title: Change in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation: Sufficient, Necessary, and Counterfactual Explanations
• Authors: Timotheus Kampik, Kristijonas Čyras, José Ruiz Alarcón,
• Abstract summary: This paper presents a formal approach to explaining change of inference in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs)<n>We trace changes -- which we call strength inconsistencies -- in the partial order over argument strengths that a semantics establishes on some arguments of interest.<n>We identify sufficient, necessary, and counterfactual explanations for strength inconsistencies and show that strength inconsistency explanations exist if and only if an update leads to strength inconsistency.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This paper presents a formal approach to explaining change of inference in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs). When drawing conclusions from a QBAF and updating the QBAF to then again draw conclusions (and so on), our approach traces changes -- which we call strength inconsistencies -- in the partial order over argument strengths that a semantics establishes on some arguments of interest, called topic arguments. We trace the causes of strength inconsistencies to specific arguments, which then serve as explanations. We identify sufficient, necessary, and counterfactual explanations for strength inconsistencies and show that strength inconsistency explanations exist if and only if an update leads to strength inconsistency. We define a heuristic-based approach to facilitate the search for strength inconsistency explanations, for which we also provide an implementation.

Related papers

• Reasoning is about giving reasons [55.56111618153049]
  We show that we can identify and extract the logical structure of natural language arguments in three popular reasoning datasets with high accuracies.<n>Our approach supports all forms of reasoning that depend on the logical structure of the natural language argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-20T07:26:53Z)
• Dialogue-based Explanations for Logical Reasoning using Structured Argumentation [0.06138671548064355]
  We identify structural weaknesses of the state-of-the-art and propose a generic argumentation-based approach to address these problems.<n>Our work provides dialogue models as dialectic-proof procedures to compute and explain a query answer.<n>This allows us to construct dialectical proof trees as explanations, which are more expressive and arguably more intuitive than existing explanation formalisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T22:26:18Z)
• CE-QArg: Counterfactual Explanations for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (Technical Report) [18.505289553533164]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-11T13:34:11Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Fuzzy Labeling Semantics for Quantitative Argumentation [0.0]
  We provide a novel quantitative method called fuzzy labeling for fuzzy argumentation systems. A triple of acceptability, rejectability, and undecidability degrees is used to evaluate argument strength.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-15T08:31:36Z)
• Don't Explain Noise: Robust Counterfactuals for Randomized Ensembles [50.81061839052459]
  We formalize the generation of robust counterfactual explanations as a probabilistic problem. We show the link between the robustness of ensemble models and the robustness of base learners. Our method achieves high robustness with only a small increase in the distance from counterfactual explanations to their initial observations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-27T17:28:54Z)
• 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)
• Contrastive Explanations for Argumentation-Based Conclusions [5.1398743023989555]
  We discuss contrastive explanations for formal argumentation. We show under which conditions contrastive explanations are meaningful, and how argumentation allows us to make implicit foils explicit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-07T15:00:47Z)
• Necessary and Sufficient Explanations in Abstract Argumentation [3.9849889653167208]
  We discuss necessary and sufficient explanations for formal argumentation. We study necessity and sufficiency: what (sets of) arguments are necessary or sufficient for the (non-acceptance) of an argument?
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-04T17:12:12Z)

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.