Change in quantitative bipolar argumentation: sufficient, necessary, and counterfactual explanations

DOI10.1016/j.ijar.2023.109066MaRDI QIDQ6570290FDOQ6570290

José Ruiz Alarcón, Timotheus Kampik, Kristijonas Čyras

Publication date: 10 July 2024

Published in: International Journal of Approximate Reasoning (Search for Journal in Brave)

zbMATH Keywords

formal methodsquantitative argumentationexplainable AI

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Reasoning under uncertainty in the context of artificial intelligence (68T37)

Cites Work

• Title not available (Why is that?)
• Title not available (Why is that?)
• Title not available (Why is that?)
• Argumentation in artificial intelligence
• On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and \(n\)-person games
• Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation
• Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks
• Change in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks: Adding an Argument
• Polynomial calculation of the Shapley value based on sampling
• Counterfactuals
• Abduction in argumentation frameworks
• On Explanations for Non-Acceptable Arguments
• From fine-grained properties to broad principles for gradual argumentation: a principled spectrum
• Necessary and sufficient explanations for argumentation-based conclusions
• Interpretability of gradual semantics in abstract argumentation
• Explanations of non-monotonic inference in admissibility-based abstract argumentation

Cited In (2)

• Contribution functions for quantitative bipolar argumentation graphs: a principle-based analysis
• Minimality, necessity and sufficiency for argumentation and explanation

This page was built for publication: Change in quantitative bipolar argumentation: sufficient, necessary, and counterfactual explanations

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q6570290)