Rethinking Explanations: Formalizing Contrast in Description Logics

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.01442v1
• Date: Sat, 02 May 2026 13:41:49 GMT
• Title: Rethinking Explanations: Formalizing Contrast in Description Logics
• Abstract summary: We propose contrastive explanations, aiming at answering "why an axiom P (fact) is true instead of another axiom Q (foil)" over description logic knowledge bases.<n>We first present formal foundations of contrasting questions and then define contrastive explanations within description logics.
• Score: 8.369356734187335
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: There has been a growing interest in explaining entailments over description logic (DL) knowledge bases. The existing explanation formalisms focus on justifications to explain true axioms, and abductive reasoning to explain missing axioms in a knowledge base. However, these formalisms only point out the reasoning steps behind a (missing) entailment and lack a user-centered approach as they do not consider an inquirer's needs, level of understanding, or prior knowledge. We propose contrastive explanations, aiming at answering "why an axiom P (fact) is true instead of another axiom Q (foil)" over description logic knowledge bases. The motivation arises from the observation that when a user discovers that P has occurred, they are often surprised because they anticipated the occurrence of another similar event Q. Furthermore, individual explanations for "why P" and "why not Q" are unsatisfactory since a user expects to see the difference between P and Q. In this work, we first present formal foundations of contrasting questions and then define contrastive explanations within description logics. To this end, facts include ABox assertions of the form C(x) for a concept C and individual x. Possible foils for such facts are assertions C(y) (contrasting against an individual y), or D(x) (contrasting against a concept D). Additionally, we explore the properties of contrastive explanations in the DL EL and ALC. We also provide an implementation of our definition and an experimental evaluation on KBs of varying sizes.

Related papers

• Thinking to Recall: How Reasoning Unlocks Parametric Knowledge in LLMs [45.274171760492685]
  We find that enabling reasoning substantially expands the capability boundary of the model's parametric knowledge recall.<n>We show that our insights can be harnessed to directly improve model accuracy by prioritizing reasoning trajectories that contain hallucination-free factual statements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-10T16:59:20Z)
• Axiomatic Foundations of Counterfactual Explanations [5.285396202883409]
  Counterfactuals have emerged as one of the most compelling forms of explanation.<n>Most existing explainers focus on a single type of counterfactual and are restricted to local explanations.<n>This paper introduces an axiomatic framework built on a set of desirable properties for counterfactual explainers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T21:34:18Z)
• Can You Tell the Difference? Contrastive Explanations for ABox Entailments [10.574275082056593]
  We introduce the notion of contrastive A explanations to answer questions of the type "Why is an instance of C, but b is not?"<n>We analyze the computational complexity for different variants under different optimality criteria, considering lightweight as well as more expressive description logics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-14T13:16:43Z)
• 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)
• HOP, UNION, GENERATE: Explainable Multi-hop Reasoning without Rationale Supervision [118.0818807474809]
  This work proposes a principled, probabilistic approach for training explainable multi-hop QA systems without rationale supervision. Our approach performs multi-hop reasoning by explicitly modeling rationales as sets, enabling the model to capture interactions between documents and sentences within a document.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T16:53:49Z)
• Zero-Shot Classification by Logical Reasoning on Natural Language Explanations [56.42922904777717]
  We propose the framework CLORE (Classification by LOgical Reasoning on Explanations) CLORE parses explanations into logical structures and then explicitly reasons along thess structures on the input to produce a classification score. We also demonstrate that our framework can be extended to zero-shot classification on visual modality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T01:05:11Z)
• 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)
• Explanatory Paradigms in Neural Networks [18.32369721322249]
  We present a leap-forward expansion to the study of explainability in neural networks by considering explanations as answers to reasoning-based questions. The answers to these questions are observed correlations, observed counterfactuals, and observed contrastive explanations respectively. The term observed refers to the specific case of post-hoc explainability, when an explanatory technique explains the decision $P$ after a trained neural network has made the decision $P$.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-24T00:22:11Z)
• Causal Explanations and XAI [8.909115457491522]
  An important goal of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is to compensate for mismatches by offering explanations. I take a step further by formally defining the causal notions of sufficient explanations and counterfactual explanations. I also touch upon the significance of this work for fairness in AI by showing how actual causation can be used to improve the idea of path-specific counterfactual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-31T12:32:10Z)
• Human Interpretation of Saliency-based Explanation Over Text [65.29015910991261]
  We study saliency-based explanations over textual data. We find that people often mis-interpret the explanations. We propose a method to adjust saliencies based on model estimates of over- and under-perception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-27T15:20:32Z)
• Diagnosing AI Explanation Methods with Folk Concepts of Behavior [70.10183435379162]
  We consider "success" to depend not only on what information the explanation contains, but also on what information the human explainee understands from it. We use folk concepts of behavior as a framework of social attribution by the human explainee.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-27T00:19:41Z)

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.