arXiv subjects

Nico Potyka

Publications and source records attributed to Nico Potyka.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Contrastive Explanations in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks

Argumentation frameworks are useful tools for representing and reasoning with information in a variety of settings, e.g. in supplementing AI models as they perform classification tasks, with a notable benefit of providing additional explainability. In this paper, we introduce contrastive explanations for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs), one such formalism. Unlike most existing explanations for QBAFs, which explain the reasoning outcome of a single argument of interest (i.e. a topic argument), contrastive explanations explain the difference between two topic arguments. We introduce a general form of contrastive attribution functions (CAFs) and establish a set of general properties they should satisfy. We introduce CAFs based on removal, gradients and Shapley-values, and study their properties. Finally, to illustrate contrastive explanations, we demonstrate their usefulness in healthcare and bias identification settings.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Towards an Argumentative Foundation for Evaluative AI

Evaluative AI (EAI) has been recently proposed as a way to support human decision-making, not by producing a single recommendation, but by presenting competing hypotheses together with evidence for and against each. In this position paper, we advocate (computational) argumentation as a particularly suitable paradigm to provide a formal, computable foundation for forms of EAI that are explainable and contestable, setting the ground for a long-term research agenda towards distributed and human-centred EAI systems.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Strength Change Explanations in Quantitative Argumentation

In order to make argumentation-based inference contestable, it is crucial to explain what changes can achieve a desired (instead of the contested) inference result. To this end, we introduce strength change explanations for quantitative (bipolar) argumentation graphs. Strength change explanations describe changes to the initial strengths of a subset of the arguments in a given graph that can achieve a desired ordering based on the final strengths of some (potentially different) subset of arguments. We show that the existing notions of inverse and counterfactual problems can be reduced to strength change explanations. We also prove basic soundness and completeness properties of our strength change explanations, and demonstrate their existence and non-existence in some special cases. By applying a heuristic search, we demonstrate that we can often successfully find strength change explanations for layered graphs that are common in typical application scenarios; still, limitations remain for settings where we do not provide guarantees for the presence (or absence) of explanations.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2025

ArgRAG: 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 evidence and opaque, stochastic decision-making. We propose ArgRAG, an explainable, and contestable alternative that replaces black-box reasoning with structured inference using a Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework (QBAF). ArgRAG constructs a QBAF from retrieved documents and performs deterministic reasoning under gradual semantics. This allows faithfully explaining and contesting decisions. Evaluated on two fact verification benchmarks, PubHealth and RAGuard, ArgRAG achieves strong accuracy while significantly improving transparency.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Argumentative Debates for Transparent Bias Detection [Technical Report]

As the use of AI in society grows, addressing emerging biases is essential to prevent systematic discrimination. Several bias detection methods have been proposed, but, with few exceptions, these tend to ignore transparency. Instead, interpretability and explainability are core requirements for algorithmic fairness, even more so than for other algorithmic solutions, given the human-oriented nature of fairness. We present ABIDE (Argumentative BIas detection by DEbate), a novel framework that structures bias detection transparently as debate, guided by an underlying argument graph as understood in (formal and computational) argumentation. The arguments are about the success chances of groups in local neighbourhoods and the significance of these neighbourhoods. We evaluate ABIDE experimentally and demonstrate its strengths in performance against an argumentative baseline.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Contestability in Quantitative Argumentation

Contestable AI requires that AI-driven decisions align with human preferences. While various forms of argumentation have been shown to support contestability, Edge-Weighted Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (EW-QBAFs) have received little attention. In this work, we show how EW-QBAFs can be deployed for this purpose. Specifically, we introduce the contestability problem for EW-QBAFs, which asks how to modify edge weights (e.g., preferences) to achieve a desired strength for a specific argument of interest (i.e., a topic argument). To address this problem, we propose gradient-based relation attribution explanations (G-RAEs), which quantify the sensitivity of the topic argument's strength to changes in individual edge weights, thus providing interpretable guidance for weight adjustments towards contestability. Building on G-RAEs, we develop an iterative algorithm that progressively adjusts the edge weights to attain the desired strength. We evaluate our approach experimentally on synthetic EW-QBAFs that simulate the structural characteristics of personalised recommender systems and multi-layer perceptrons, and demonstrate that it can solve the problem effectively.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Privacy-Preserving Inconsistency Measurement

We investigate a new form of (privacy-preserving) inconsistency measurement for multi-party communication. Intuitively, for two knowledge bases K_A, K_B (of two agents A, B), our results allow to quantitatively assess the degree of inconsistency for K_A U K_B without having to reveal the actual contents of the knowledge bases. Using secure multi-party computation (SMPC) and cryptographic protocols, we develop two concrete methods for this use-case and show that they satisfy important properties of SMPC protocols -- notably, input privacy, i.e., jointly computing the inconsistency degree without revealing the inputs.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2024

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 assigning importance scores to other arguments but fail to explain how to change the current strength to a desired one. To solve this issue, we introduce counterfactual explanations for QBAFs. We discuss problem variants and propose an iterative algorithm named Counterfactual Explanations for Quantitative bipolar Argumentation frameworks (CE-QArg). CE-QArg can identify valid and cost-effective counterfactual explanations based on two core modules, polarity and priority, which help determine the updating direction and magnitude for each argument, respectively. We discuss some formal properties of our counterfactual explanations and empirically evaluate CE-QArg on randomly generated QBAFs.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Predictive Multiplicity of Knowledge Graph Embeddings in Link Prediction

Knowledge graph embedding (KGE) models are often used to predict missing links for knowledge graphs (KGs). However, multiple KG embeddings can perform almost equally well for link prediction yet give conflicting predictions for unseen queries. This phenomenon is termed \textit{predictive multiplicity} in the literature. It poses substantial risks for KGE-based applications in high-stake domains but has been overlooked in KGE research. We define predictive multiplicity in link prediction, introduce evaluation metrics and measure predictive multiplicity for representative KGE methods on commonly used benchmark datasets. Our empirical study reveals significant predictive multiplicity in link prediction, with $8\%$ to $39\%$ testing queries exhibiting conflicting predictions. We address this issue by leveraging voting methods from social choice theory, significantly mitigating conflicts by $66\%$ to $78\%$ in our experiments.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Applying Attribution Explanations in Truth-Discovery Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks

Explaining the strength of arguments under gradual semantics is receiving increasing attention. For example, various studies in the literature offer explanations by computing the attribution scores of arguments or edges in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs). These explanations, known as Argument Attribution Explanations (AAEs) and Relation Attribution Explanations (RAEs), commonly employ removal-based and Shapley-based techniques for computing the attribution scores. While AAEs and RAEs have proven useful in several applications with acyclic QBAFs, they remain largely unexplored for cyclic QBAFs. Furthermore, existing applications tend to focus solely on either AAEs or RAEs, but do not compare them directly. In this paper, we apply both AAEs and RAEs, to Truth Discovery QBAFs (TD-QBAFs), which assess the trustworthiness of sources (e.g., websites) and their claims (e.g., the severity of a virus), and feature complex cycles. We find that both AAEs and RAEs can provide interesting explanations and can give non-trivial and surprising insights.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Conformalized Answer Set Prediction for Knowledge Graph Embedding

Knowledge graph embeddings (KGE) apply machine learning methods on knowledge graphs (KGs) to provide non-classical reasoning capabilities based on similarities and analogies. The learned KG embeddings are typically used to answer queries by ranking all potential answers, but rankings often lack a meaningful probabilistic interpretation - lower-ranked answers do not necessarily have a lower probability of being true. This limitation makes it difficult to quantify uncertainty of model's predictions, posing challenges for the application of KGE methods in high-stakes domains like medicine. We address this issue by applying the theory of conformal prediction that allows generating answer sets, which contain the correct answer with probabilistic guarantees. We explain how conformal prediction can be used to generate such answer sets for link prediction tasks. Our empirical evaluation on four benchmark datasets using six representative KGE methods validates that the generated answer sets satisfy the probabilistic guarantees given by the theory of conformal prediction. We also demonstrate that the generated answer sets often have a sensible size and that the size adapts well with respect to the difficulty of the query.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Approximating Probabilistic Inference in Statistical EL with Knowledge Graph Embeddings

Statistical information is ubiquitous but drawing valid conclusions from it is prohibitively hard. We explain how knowledge graph embeddings can be used to approximate probabilistic inference efficiently using the example of Statistical EL (SEL), a statistical extension of the lightweight Description Logic EL. We provide proofs for runtime and soundness guarantees, and empirically evaluate the runtime and approximation quality of our approach.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Contribution Functions for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Graphs: A Principle-based Analysis

We present a principle-based analysis of contribution functions for quantitative bipolar argumentation graphs that quantify the contribution of one argument to another. The introduced principles formalise the intuitions underlying different contribution functions as well as expectations one would have regarding the behaviour of contribution functions in general. As none of the covered contribution functions satisfies all principles, our analysis can serve as a tool that enables the selection of the most suitable function based on the requirements of a given use case.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Robust Knowledge Extraction from Large Language Models using Social Choice Theory

Large-language models (LLMs) can support a wide range of applications like conversational agents, creative writing or general query answering. However, they are ill-suited for query answering in high-stake domains like medicine because they are typically not robust - even the same query can result in different answers when prompted multiple times. In order to improve the robustness of LLM queries, we propose using ranking queries repeatedly and to aggregate the queries using methods from social choice theory. We study ranking queries in diagnostic settings like medical and fault diagnosis and discuss how the Partial Borda Choice function from the literature can be applied to merge multiple query results. We discuss some additional interesting properties in our setting and evaluate the robustness of our approach empirically.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Non-flat ABA is an Instance of Bipolar Argumentation

Assumption-based Argumentation (ABA) is a well-known structured argumentation formalism, whereby arguments and attacks between them are drawn from rules, defeasible assumptions and their contraries. A common restriction imposed on ABA frameworks (ABAFs) is that they are flat, i.e., each of the defeasible assumptions can only be assumed, but not derived. While it is known that flat ABAFs can be translated into abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) as proposed by Dung, no translation exists from general, possibly non-flat ABAFs into any kind of abstract argumentation formalism. In this paper, we close this gap and show that bipolar AFs (BAFs) can instantiate general ABAFs. To this end we develop suitable, novel BAF semantics which borrow from the notion of deductive support. We investigate basic properties of our BAFs, including computational complexity, and prove the desired relation to ABAFs under several semantics. Finally, in order to support computation and explainability, we propose the notion of dispute trees for our BAF semantics.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2023

Promoting Counterfactual Robustness through Diversity

Counterfactual explanations shed light on the decisions of black-box models by explaining how an input can be altered to obtain a favourable decision from the model (e.g., when a loan application has been rejected). However, as noted recently, counterfactual explainers may lack robustness in the sense that a minor change in the input can cause a major change in the explanation. This can cause confusion on the user side and open the door for adversarial attacks. In this paper, we study some sources of non-robustness. While there are fundamental reasons for why an explainer that returns a single counterfactual cannot be robust in all instances, we show that some interesting robustness guarantees can be given by reporting multiple rather than a single counterfactual. Unfortunately, the number of counterfactuals that need to be reported for the theoretical guarantees to hold can be prohibitively large. We therefore propose an approximation algorithm that uses a diversity criterion to select a feasible number of most relevant explanations and study its robustness empirically. Our experiments indicate that our method improves the state-of-the-art in generating robust explanations, while maintaining other desirable properties and providing competitive computational performance.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

ProtoArgNet: Interpretable Image Classification with Super-Prototypes and Argumentation [Technical Report]

We propose ProtoArgNet, a novel interpretable deep neural architecture for image classification in the spirit of prototypical-part-learning as found, e.g., in ProtoPNet. While earlier approaches associate every class with multiple prototypical-parts, ProtoArgNet uses super-prototypes that combine prototypical-parts into a unified class representation. This is done by combining local activations of prototypes in an MLP-like manner, enabling the localization of prototypes and learning (non-linear) spatial relationships among them. By leveraging a form of argumentation, ProtoArgNet is capable of providing both supporting (i.e. `this looks like that') and attacking (i.e. `this differs from that') explanations. We demonstrate on several datasets that ProtoArgNet outperforms state-of-the-art prototypical-part-learning approaches. Moreover, the argumentation component in ProtoArgNet is customisable to the user's cognitive requirements by a process of sparsification, which leads to more compact explanations compared to state-of-the-art approaches.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2023

Understanding ProbLog as Probabilistic Argumentation

ProbLog is a popular probabilistic logic programming language/tool, widely used for applications requiring to deal with inherent uncertainties in structured domains. In this paper we study connections between ProbLog and a variant of another well-known formalism combining symbolic reasoning and reasoning under uncertainty, i.e. probabilistic argumentation. Specifically, we show that ProbLog is an instance of a form of Probabilistic Abstract Argumentation (PAA) that builds upon Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA). The connections pave the way towards equipping ProbLog with alternative semantics, inherited from PAA/PABA, as well as obtaining novel argumentation semantics for PAA/PABA, leveraging on prior connections between ProbLog and argumentation. Further, the connections pave the way towards novel forms of argumentative explanations for ProbLog's outputs.

cs.AI↗