Explaining Random Forests using Bipolar Argumentation and Markov Networks (Technical Report)
Random forests are decision tree ensembles that can be used to solve a variety of machine learning problems. However, as the number of trees and their individual size can be large, their decision making process is often incomprehensible. In order to reason about the decision process, we propose representing it as an argumentation problem. We generalize sufficient and necessary argumentative explanations using a Markov network encoding, discuss the relevance of these explanations and establish relationships to families of abductive explanations from the literature. As the complexity of the explanation problems is high, we discuss a probabilistic approximation algorithm and present first experimental results.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Decision MakingSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Argument Attribution Explanations in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (Technical Report)
Argumentative explainable AI has been advocated by several in recent years, with an increasing interest on explaining the reasoning outcomes of Argumentation Frameworks (AFs). While there is a considerable body of resear…
Fake News DetectionRecommendation SystemsArgRAG: Explainable Retrieval Augmented Generation using Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enhances large language models by incorporating external knowledge, yet suffers from critical limitations in high-stakes domains -- namely, sensitivity to noisy or contradictory evide…
Fact VerificationChange in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation: Sufficient, Necessary, and Counterfactual Explanations
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 …
CE-QArg: Counterfactual Explanations for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (Technical Report)
There is a growing interest in understanding arguments' strength in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs). Most existing studies focus on attribution-based methods that explain an argument's strength by a…
counterfactualvalidComplexity Results and Algorithms for Bipolar Argumentation
Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (BAFs) admit several interpretations of the support relation and diverging definitions of semantics. Recently, several classes of BAFs have been captured as instances of bipolar Assumptio…