Strength Change Explanations in Quantitative Argumentation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00008v1
• Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 07:48:46 GMT
• Title: Strength Change Explanations in Quantitative Argumentation
• Abstract summary: We introduce strength change explanations for quantitative (bipolar) argumentation graphs.<n>We show that the existing notions of inverse and counterfactual problems can be reduced to strength change explanations.
• Score: 25.159863010687488
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In order to make argumentation-based inference contestable, it is crucial to explain what changes can achieve a desired (instead of the contested) inference result. To this end, we introduce strength change explanations for quantitative (bipolar) argumentation graphs. Strength change explanations describe changes to the initial strengths of a subset of the arguments in a given graph that can achieve a desired ordering based on the final strengths of some (potentially different) subset of arguments. We show that the existing notions of inverse and counterfactual problems can be reduced to strength change explanations. We also prove basic soundness and completeness properties of our strength change explanations, and demonstrate their existence and non-existence in some special cases. By applying a heuristic search, we demonstrate that we can often successfully find strength change explanations for layered graphs that are common in typical application scenarios; still, limitations remain for settings where we do not provide guarantees for the presence (or absence) of explanations.

Related papers

• Change in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation: Sufficient, Necessary, and Counterfactual Explanations [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-21T20:26:47Z)
• 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)
• Complexity of Faceted Explanations in Propositional Abduction [6.674752821781092]
  Abductive reasoning is a popular non-monotonic paradigm that aims to explain observed symptoms and manifestations.<n>In propositional abduction, we focus on specifying knowledge by a propositional formula.<n>We consider reasoning between decisions and counting, allowing us to understand explanations better.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-20T13:50:26Z)
• Reasoning-Grounded Natural Language Explanations for Language Models [2.7855886538423182]
  We propose a large language model explainability technique for obtaining faithful natural language explanations.<n>When converted to a sequence of tokens, the outputs of the reasoning process can become part of the model context.<n>We show that the proposed use of reasoning can also improve the quality of the answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-14T10:00:03Z)
• Nonparametric Partial Disentanglement via Mechanism Sparsity: Sparse Actions, Interventions and Sparse Temporal Dependencies [58.179981892921056]
  This work introduces a novel principle for disentanglement we call mechanism sparsity regularization. We propose a representation learning method that induces disentanglement by simultaneously learning the latent factors. We show that the latent factors can be recovered by regularizing the learned causal graph to be sparse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-10T02:38:21Z)
• Promoting Counterfactual Robustness through Diversity [10.223545393731115]
  Counterfactual explainers may lack robustness in the sense that a minor change in the input can cause a major change in the explanation. We propose an approximation algorithm that uses a diversity criterion to select a feasible number of most relevant explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T17:49:25Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Variational Causal Networks: Approximate Bayesian Inference over Causal Structures [132.74509389517203]
  We introduce a parametric variational family modelled by an autoregressive distribution over the space of discrete DAGs. In experiments, we demonstrate that the proposed variational posterior is able to provide a good approximation of the true posterior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-14T17:52:49Z)
• ExplanationLP: Abductive Reasoning for Explainable Science Question Answering [4.726777092009554]
  This paper frames question answering as an abductive reasoning problem. We construct plausible explanations for each choice and then selecting the candidate with the best explanation as the final answer. Our system, ExplanationLP, elicits explanations by constructing a weighted graph of relevant facts for each candidate answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-25T14:49:24Z)
• The Struggles of Feature-Based Explanations: Shapley Values vs. Minimal Sufficient Subsets [61.66584140190247]
  We show that feature-based explanations pose problems even for explaining trivial models. We show that two popular classes of explainers, Shapley explainers and minimal sufficient subsets explainers, target fundamentally different types of ground-truth explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-23T09:45:23Z)

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.