Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces contrastive explanations within Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs), enhancing the interpretability of argumentation-based reasoning by elucidating the differences between two topic arguments rather than focusing solely on a single argument. The authors establish a framework for contrastive attribution functions (CAFs), exploring various methods including removal, gradients, and Shapley-values to derive these explanations. Key findings illustrate the practical applications of contrastive explanations in healthcare and bias identification, showcasing their potential to improve decision-making processes in these critical areas.
Contrastive explanations can reveal nuanced differences between competing arguments, significantly enhancing interpretability in AI-driven decision-making.
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.