Beyond But-for Test: Counterfactual Explanation in Abstract Argumentation via Actual Causality (Extended Version)

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.31080v1
• Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2026 03:13:02 GMT
• Title: Beyond But-for Test: Counterfactual Explanation in Abstract Argumentation via Actual Causality (Extended Version)
• Abstract summary: We introduce an intervention-based counterfactual reasoning framework in abstract argumentation.<n>Our method goes beyond the but-for test, thereby correctly identifying causes in argumentation structures such as Preemption and Overdetermination.
• Score: 5.972254626695083
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Counterfactual explanation in abstract argumentation calls for an answer to the what-if query: would the topic argument still be accepted if the status of certain other arguments were changed? Existing approaches are limited to the but-for test and fail to accommodate more refined counterfactual conditions. To overcome these limitations, we introduce an intervention-based counterfactual reasoning framework in abstract argumentation. Our approach encodes the acceptance conditions of arguments as equations, then defines an intervention operator that supports (1) changing sets of arguments simultaneously, and (2) fixing witness arguments to their actual labels. Guided by the refined counterfactual condition introduced in the Halpern-Pearl definition, our method goes beyond the but-for test, thereby correctly identifying causes in argumentation structures such as Preemption and Overdetermination. Through comparison, we show that our method surpasses prior methods in both expressiveness and reliability.

Related papers

• Rejecting Arguments Based on Doubt in Structured Bipolar Argumentation [2.6754173570117303]
  This paper develops a new approach to computational argumentation informed by philosophical and linguistic views.<n>It takes into account two ideas that have received little attention in the literature on computational argumentation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T09:09:19Z)
• 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)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [47.84663434179473]
  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.<n>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)
• 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)
• Intrinsic Argument Strength in Structured Argumentation: a Principled Approach [0.0]
  We study methods for assigning an argument its intrinsic strength, based on the strengths of the premises and inference rules used to form said argument. We first define a set of principles, which are properties that strength assigning methods might satisfy. We then propose two such methods and analyse which principles they satisfy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-01T11:54:15Z)
• 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)
• Nested Counterfactual Identification from Arbitrary Surrogate Experiments [95.48089725859298]
  We study the identification of nested counterfactuals from an arbitrary combination of observations and experiments. Specifically, we prove the counterfactual unnesting theorem (CUT), which allows one to map arbitrary nested counterfactuals to unnested ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-07T12:51:04Z)
• Reinforcement Learning-based Dialogue Guided Event Extraction to Exploit Argument Relations [70.35379323231241]
  This paper presents a better approach for event extraction by explicitly utilizing the relationships of event arguments. We employ reinforcement learning and incremental learning to extract multiple arguments via a multi-turned, iterative process. Experimental results show that our approach consistently outperforms seven state-of-the-art event extraction methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-23T13:24:39Z)
• Abstract Interpretation in Formal Argumentation: with a Galois Connection for Abstract Dialectical Frameworks and May-Must Argumentation (First Report) [3.7311680121118336]
  Labelling-based formal argumentation relies on labelling functions that typically assign one of 3 labels to indicate either acceptance, rejection, or else undecided-to-be-either. Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADF) is a well-known argumentation formalism that belongs to this category. We prove that there is a Galois connection between MMA and ADF, in which is a concretisation of MMA and MMA is an abstraction of ADF.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-22T04:26:15Z)

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.