Deep Argumentative Explanations
read the original abstract
Despite the recent, widespread focus on eXplainable AI (XAI), explanations computed by XAI methods tend to provide little insight into the functioning of Neural Networks (NNs). We propose a novel framework for obtaining (local) explanations from NNs while providing transparency about their inner workings, and show how to deploy it for various neural architectures and tasks. We refer to our novel explanations collectively as Deep Argumentative eXplanations (DAXs in short), given that they reflect the deep structure of the underlying NNs and that they are defined in terms of notions from computational argumentation, a form of symbolic AI offering useful reasoning abstractions for explanation. We evaluate DAXs empirically showing that they exhibit deep fidelity and low computational cost. We also conduct human experiments indicating that DAXs are comprehensible to humans and align with their judgement, while also being competitive, in terms of user acceptance, with some existing approaches to XAI that also have an argumentative spirit.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
From User Preferences to Base Score Extraction Functions in Gradual Argumentation (with Appendix)
Base Score Extraction Functions convert user preferences into base scores for Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks, producing Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks usable with existing gradual semantics tools, inc...
-
Contestable AI needs Computational Argumentation
Contestable AI needs dynamic processes enabled by computational argumentation instead of static models.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.