-
Axiomatic Characterisations of Sample-based Explainers
Authors:
Leila Amgoud,
Martin C. Cooper,
Salim Debbaoui
Abstract:
Explaining decisions of black-box classifiers is both important and computationally challenging. In this paper, we scrutinize explainers that generate feature-based explanations from samples or datasets. We start by presenting a set of desirable properties that explainers would ideally satisfy, delve into their relationships, and highlight incompatibilities of some of them. We identify the entire…
▽ More
Explaining decisions of black-box classifiers is both important and computationally challenging. In this paper, we scrutinize explainers that generate feature-based explanations from samples or datasets. We start by presenting a set of desirable properties that explainers would ideally satisfy, delve into their relationships, and highlight incompatibilities of some of them. We identify the entire family of explainers that satisfy two key properties which are compatible with all the others. Its instances provide sufficient reasons, called weak abductive explanations.We then unravel its various subfamilies that satisfy subsets of compatible properties. Indeed, we fully characterize all the explainers that satisfy any subset of compatible properties. In particular, we introduce the first (broad family of) explainers that guarantee the existence of explanations and their global consistency.We discuss some of its instances including the irrefutable explainer and the surrogate explainer whose explanations can be found in polynomial time.
△ Less
Submitted 12 August, 2024; v1 submitted 9 August, 2024;
originally announced August 2024.
-
Dung's semantics satisfy attack removal monotonicity
Authors:
Leila Amgoud,
Srdjan Vesic
Abstract:
We show that preferred, stable, complete, and grounded semantics satisfy attack removal monotonicity. This means that if an attack from b to a is removed, the status of a cannot worsen, e.g. if a was skeptically accepted, it cannot become rejected.
We show that preferred, stable, complete, and grounded semantics satisfy attack removal monotonicity. This means that if an attack from b to a is removed, the status of a cannot worsen, e.g. if a was skeptically accepted, it cannot become rejected.
△ Less
Submitted 8 July, 2020;
originally announced July 2020.
-
A note on the uniqueness of models in social abstract argumentation
Authors:
Leila Amgoud,
Elise Bonzon,
Marco Correia,
Jorge Cruz,
Jérôme Delobelle,
Sébastien Konieczny,
João Leite,
Alexis Martin,
Nicolas Maudet,
Srdjan Vesic
Abstract:
Social abstract argumentation is a principled way to assign values to conflicting (weighted) arguments. In this note we discuss the important property of the uniqueness of the model.
Social abstract argumentation is a principled way to assign values to conflicting (weighted) arguments. In this note we discuss the important property of the uniqueness of the model.
△ Less
Submitted 9 May, 2017;
originally announced May 2017.
-
On the Acceptability of Arguments in Preference-Based Argumentation
Authors:
Leila Amgoud,
Claudette Cayrol
Abstract:
Argumentation is a promising model for reasoning with uncertain knowledge. The key concept of acceptability enables to differentiate arguments and counterarguments: The certainty of a proposition can then be evaluated through the most acceptable arguments for that proposition. In this paper, we investigate different complementary points of view: - an acceptability based on the existence of direct…
▽ More
Argumentation is a promising model for reasoning with uncertain knowledge. The key concept of acceptability enables to differentiate arguments and counterarguments: The certainty of a proposition can then be evaluated through the most acceptable arguments for that proposition. In this paper, we investigate different complementary points of view: - an acceptability based on the existence of direct counterarguments, - an acceptability based on the existence of defenders. Pursuing previous work on preference-based argumentation principles, we enforce both points of view by taking into account preference orderings for comparing arguments. Our approach is illustrated in the context of reasoning with stratified knowldge bases.
△ Less
Submitted 30 January, 2013;
originally announced January 2013.
-
Using arguments for making decisions: A possibilistic logic approach
Authors:
Leila Amgoud,
Henri Prade
Abstract:
Humans currently use arguments for explaining choices which are already made, or for evaluating potential choices. Each potential choice has usually pros and cons of various strengths. In spite of the usefulness of arguments in a decision making process, there have been few formal proposals handling this idea if we except works by Fox and Parsons and by Bonet and Geffner. In this paper we propose…
▽ More
Humans currently use arguments for explaining choices which are already made, or for evaluating potential choices. Each potential choice has usually pros and cons of various strengths. In spite of the usefulness of arguments in a decision making process, there have been few formal proposals handling this idea if we except works by Fox and Parsons and by Bonet and Geffner. In this paper we propose a possibilistic logic framework where arguments are built from an uncertain knowledge base and a set of prioritized goals. The proposed approach can compute two kinds of decisions by distinguishing between pessimistic and optimistic attitudes. When the available, maybe uncertain, knowledge is consistent, as well as the set of prioritized goals (which have to be fulfilled as far as possible), the method for evaluating decisions on the basis of arguments agrees with the possibility theory-based approach to decision-making under uncertainty. Taking advantage of its relation with formal approaches to defeasible argumentation, the proposed framework can be generalized in case of partially inconsistent knowledge, or goal bases.
△ Less
Submitted 11 July, 2012;
originally announced July 2012.
-
A unified setting for inference and decision: An argumentation-based approach
Authors:
Leila Amgoud
Abstract:
Inferring from inconsistency and making decisions are two problems which have always been treated separately by researchers in Artificial Intelligence. Consequently, different models have been proposed for each category. Different argumentation systems [2, 7, 10, 11] have been developed for handling inconsistency in knowledge bases. Recently, other argumentation systems [3, 4, 8] have been defined…
▽ More
Inferring from inconsistency and making decisions are two problems which have always been treated separately by researchers in Artificial Intelligence. Consequently, different models have been proposed for each category. Different argumentation systems [2, 7, 10, 11] have been developed for handling inconsistency in knowledge bases. Recently, other argumentation systems [3, 4, 8] have been defined for making decisions under uncertainty. The aim of this paper is to present a general argumentation framework in which both inferring from inconsistency and decision making are captured. The proposed framework can be used for decision under uncertainty, multiple criteria decision, rule-based decision and finally case-based decision. Moreover, works on classical decision suppose that the information about environment is coherent, and this no longer required by this general framework.
△ Less
Submitted 4 July, 2012;
originally announced July 2012.
