A novel structured argumentation framework for improved explainability of classification tasks
This paper presents a novel framework for structured argumentation, named extend argumentative decision graph ($xADG$). It is an extension of argumentative decision graphs built upon Dung's abstract argumentation graphs. The $xADG$ framework allows for arguments to use boolean logic operators and multiple premises (supports) within their internal structure, resulting in more concise argumentation graphs that may be easier for users to understand. The study presents a methodology for construction of $xADGs$ and evaluates their size and predictive capacity for classification tasks of varying magnitudes. Resulting $xADGs$ achieved strong (balanced) accuracy, which was accomplished through an input decision tree, while also reducing the average number of supports needed to reach a conclusion. The results further indicated that it is possible to construct plausibly understandable $xADGs$ that outperform other techniques for building $ADGs$ in terms of predictive capacity and overall size. In summary, the study suggests that $xADG$ represents a promising framework to developing more concise argumentative models that can be used for classification tasks and knowledge discovery, acquisition, and refinement.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Abstract ArgumentationSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
PHAX: A Structured Argumentation Framework for User-Centered Explainable AI in Public Health and Biomedical Sciences
Ensuring transparency and trust in AI-driven public health and biomedical sciences systems requires more than accurate predictions-it demands explanations that are clear, contextual, and socially accountable. While expla…
Non-flat ABA is an Instance of Bipolar Argumentation
Assumption-based Argumentation (ABA) is a well-known structured argumentation formalism, whereby arguments and attacks between them are drawn from rules, defeasible assumptions and their contraries. A common restriction …
Abstract ArgumentationThe Argument is the Explanation: Structured Argumentation for Trust in Agents
Humans are black boxes -- we cannot observe their neural processes, yet society functions by evaluating verifiable arguments. AI explainability should follow this principle: stakeholders need verifiable reasoning chains,…
Relation ClassificationDialectical Reconciliation via Structured Argumentative Dialogues
We present a novel framework designed to extend model reconciliation approaches, commonly used in human-aware planning, for enhanced human-AI interaction. By adopting a structured argumentation-based dialogue paradigm, o…
AI AgentCounterfactual and Semifactual Explanations in Abstract Argumentation: Formal Foundations, Complexity and Computation
Explainable Artificial Intelligence and Formal Argumentation have received significant attention in recent years. Argumentation-based systems often lack explainability while supporting decision-making processes. Counterf…
Abstract ArgumentationcounterfactualDecision MakingExplainable artificial intelligence