Interactive Explanations by Conflict Resolution via Argumentative Exchanges
As the field of explainable AI (XAI) is maturing, calls for interactive explanations for (the outputs of) AI models are growing, but the state-of-the-art predominantly focuses on static explanations. In this paper, we focus instead on interactive explanations framed as conflict resolution between agents (i.e. AI models and/or humans) by leveraging on computational argumentation. Specifically, we define Argumentative eXchanges (AXs) for dynamically sharing, in multi-agent systems, information harboured in individual agents' quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks towards resolving conflicts amongst the agents. We then deploy AXs in the XAI setting in which a machine and a human interact about the machine's predictions. We identify and assess several theoretical properties characterising AXs that are suitable for XAI. Finally, we instantiate AXs for XAI by defining various agent behaviours, e.g. capturing counterfactual patterns of reasoning in machines and highlighting the effects of cognitive biases in humans. We show experimentally (in a simulated environment) the comparative advantages of these behaviours in terms of conflict resolution, and show that the strongest argument may not always be the most effective.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
counterfactualExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Free Argumentative Exchanges for Explaining Image Classifiers
Deep learning models are powerful image classifiers but their opacity hinders their trustworthiness. Explanation methods for capturing the reasoning process within these classifiers faithfully and in a clear manner are s…
ArgLLM-App: An Interactive System for Argumentative Reasoning with Large Language Models
Argumentative LLMs (ArgLLMs) are an existing approach leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) and computational argumentation for decision-making, with the aim of making the resulting decisions faithfully explainable to …
Adaptive Collaboration of Arena-Based Argumentative LLMs for Explainable and Contestable Legal Reasoning
Legal reasoning requires not only high accuracy but also the ability to justify decisions through verifiable and contestable arguments. However, existing Large Language Model (LLM) approaches, such as Chain-of-Thought (C…
Legal ReasoningNeurosymbolic Learning for Inference-Time Argumentation
Claim verification is an important problem in high-stakes settings, including health and finance. When information underpinning claims is incomplete or conflicting, uncertain answers may be more appropriate than binary t…
Explainable Decision Making with Lean and Argumentative Explanations
It is widely acknowledged that transparency of automated decision making is crucial for deployability of intelligent systems, and explaining the reasons why some decisions are "good" and some are not is a way to achievin…
Decision Making