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 suggest conflicting predictions for certain queries, termed \textit{predictive multiplicity} in literature. This behavior poses substantial risks for KGE-based applications in high-stake domains but has been overlooked in KGE research. In this paper, we define predictive multiplicity in link prediction. We 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. To address this issue, we propose leveraging voting methods from social choice theory, significantly mitigating conflicts by $66\%$ to $78\%$ according to our experiments.

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.

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.

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.

In formal argumentation, arguments and their relations are typically represented as directed graphs, in which nodes are arguments and edges are argument relationships (typically: attack or support). From these argumentation graphs, inferences about the acceptability statuses or strengths of arguments are drawn. One formal argumentation approach that is gaining increased research attention is Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation (QBA). In QBA, (typically numerical) weights - so-called initial strengths - are assigned to arguments, and arguments are connected by a support and an attack relation. Hence, arguments directly connected to a node through the node's incoming edges can be referred to as attackers and supporters (depending on the relation). Given a Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Graph (QBAG), an argumentation semantics then infers the arguments' final strengths; intuitively, an argument's attackers tend to decrease its final strength, whereas supporters tend to increase it.

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.

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.

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 single prototypical class representations. Furthermore, while earlier approaches use interpretable classification layers, e.g. logistic regression in ProtoPNet, ProtoArgNet improves accuracy with multi-layer perceptrons while relying upon an interpretable reading thereof based on a form of argumentation. ProtoArgNet is customisable to user cognitive requirements by a process of sparsification of the multi-layer perceptron/argumentation component. Also, as opposed to other prototypical-part-learning approaches, ProtoArgNet can recognise spatial relations between different prototypical-parts that are from different regions in images, similar to how CNNs capture relations between patterns recognized in earlier layers.

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.

Argumentative explainable AI has been advocated by several in recent years, with an increasing interest on explaining the reasoning outcomes of Argumentation Frameworks (AFs). While there is a considerable body of research on qualitatively explaining the reasoning outcomes of AFs with debates/disputes/dialogues in the spirit of extension-based semantics, explaining the quantitative reasoning outcomes of AFs under gradual semantics has not received much attention, despite widespread use in applications. In this paper, we contribute to filling this gap by proposing a novel theory of Argument Attribution Explanations (AAEs) by incorporating the spirit of feature attribution from machine learning in the context of Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs): whereas feature attribution is used to determine the influence of features towards outputs of machine learning models, AAEs are used to determine the influence of arguments towards topic arguments of interest. We study desirable properties of AAEs, including some new ones and some partially adapted from the literature to our setting. To demonstrate the applicability of our AAEs in practice, we conclude by carrying out two case studies in the scenarios of fake news detection and movie recommender systems.