Contrastive Explanations in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks
TL;DR
This paper introduces contrastive explanations for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs), one such formalism, and introduces a general form of contrastive attribution functions (CAFs) and establishes a set of general properties they should satisfy.
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.
