Contrastive Explanations in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.02399v1
• Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2026 10:11:13 GMT
• Title: Contrastive Explanations in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks
• Abstract summary: We introduce contrastive explanations for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs)<n>Unlike most existing explanations for QBAFs, contrastive explanations explain the difference between two topic arguments.<n>We demonstrate their usefulness in healthcare and bias identification settings.
• Score: 30.894983962076523
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Argumentation frameworks are useful tools for representing and reasoning with information in a variety of settings, e.g. in supplementing AI models as they perform classification tasks, with a notable benefit of providing additional explainability. In this paper, we introduce contrastive explanations for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs), one such formalism. Unlike most existing explanations for QBAFs, which explain the reasoning outcome of a single argument of interest (i.e. a topic argument), contrastive explanations explain the difference between two topic arguments. We introduce a general form of contrastive attribution functions (CAFs) and establish a set of general properties they should satisfy. We introduce CAFs based on removal, gradients and Shapley-values, and study their properties. Finally, to illustrate contrastive explanations, we demonstrate their usefulness in healthcare and bias identification settings.

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)
• Axiomatic Characterisations of Sample-based Explainers [8.397730500554047]
  We scrutinize explainers that generate feature-based explanations from samples or datasets. We identify the entire family of explainers that satisfy two key properties which are compatible with all the others. We introduce the first (broad family of) explainers that guarantee the existence of explanations and irrefutable global consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-09T07:10:07Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Explaining Causal Models with Argumentation: the Case of Bi-variate Reinforcement [15.947501347927687]
  We introduce a conceptualisation for generating argumentation frameworks (AFs) from causal models. The conceptualisation is based on reinterpreting desirable properties of semantics of AFs as explanation moulds. We perform a theoretical evaluation of these argumentative explanations, examining whether they satisfy a range of desirable explanatory and argumentative properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-23T19:39:51Z)
• 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)
• Prompting Contrastive Explanations for Commonsense Reasoning Tasks [74.7346558082693]
  Large pretrained language models (PLMs) can achieve near-human performance on commonsense reasoning tasks. We show how to use these same models to generate human-interpretable evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-12T17:06:13Z)
• Contrastive Explanations for Model Interpretability [77.92370750072831]
  We propose a methodology to produce contrastive explanations for classification models. Our method is based on projecting model representation to a latent space. Our findings shed light on the ability of label-contrastive explanations to provide a more accurate and finer-grained interpretability of a model's decision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-02T00:36:45Z)
• 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)
• A Formal Approach to Explainability [100.12889473240237]
  We study the links between explanation-generating functions and intermediate representations of learned models. We study the intersection and union of explanations as a way to construct new explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-15T10:06:47Z)

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.