为量化双极论证框架的推理变化提供三类解释方法。
Change in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation: Sufficient, Necessary, and Counterfactual Explanations
- 通过追踪论点强度顺序的变化定位原因。
- 更新后若出现强度不一致，必存在解释理由。
- 支持快速搜索解释，适合需要可解释性的研究者。
本文提出一种形式化方法，用于解释量化双极论证框架（QBAFs）中推理变化的原因。当从QBAF推导结论并更新框架再次推导（如此反复）时，该方法追踪特定关注论点（主题论点）上由语义建立的论点强度偏序关系中的变化——我们称之为强度不一致。通过将强度不一致的原因归因于具体论点，该方法识别出充分、必要和反事实解释，并证明：仅当更新导致强度不一致时，解释才存在。文中还设计了一种基于启发式的方法以加速解释搜索，并提供了实现方案。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
This paper presents a formal approach to explaining change of inference in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs). When drawing conclusions from a QBAF and updating the QBAF to then again draw conclusions (and so on), our approach traces changes -- which we call strength inconsistencies -- in the partial order over argument strengths that a semantics establishes on some arguments of interest, called topic arguments. We trace the causes of strength inconsistencies to specific arguments, which then serve as explanations. 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. We define a heuristic-based approach to facilitate the search for strength inconsistency explanations, for which we also provide an implementation.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。