This paper presents a formal approach to explaining change of inference in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs). When drawing conclusions from a QBAF and updating the QBAF to then again draw conclusions (and so on), our approach traces changes -- which we call strength inconsistencies -- in the partial order over argument strengths that a semantics establishes on some arguments of interest, called topic arguments. We trace the causes of strength inconsistencies to specific arguments, which then serve as explanations. We identify sufficient, necessary, and counterfactual explanations for strength inconsistencies and show that strength inconsistency explanations exist if and only if an update leads to strength inconsistency. We define a heuristic-based approach to facilitate the search for strength inconsistency explanations, for which we also provide an implementation.

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.

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.

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.

Quantitatively explaining the strength of arguments under gradual semantics has recently received increasing attention. Specifically, several works in the literature provide quantitative explanations by computing the attribution scores of arguments. These works disregard the importance of attacks and supports, even though they play an essential role when explaining arguments' strength. In this paper, we propose a novel theory of Relation Attribution Explanations (RAEs), adapting Shapley values from game theory to offer fine-grained insights into the role of attacks and supports in quantitative bipolar argumentation towards obtaining the arguments' strength. We show that RAEs satisfy several desirable properties. We also propose a probabilistic algorithm to approximate RAEs efficiently. Finally, we show the application value of RAEs in fraud detection and large language models case studies.

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.

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.

Explainable AI (XAI) has been investigated for decades and, together with AI itself, has witnessed unprecedented growth in recent years. Among various approaches to XAI, argumentative models have been advocated in both the AI and social science literature, as their dialectical nature appears to match some basic desirable features of the explanation activity. In this survey we overview XAI approaches built using methods from the field of computational argumentation, leveraging its wide array of reasoning abstractions and explanation delivery methods. We overview the literature focusing on different types of explanation (intrinsic and post-hoc), different models with which argumentation-based explanations are deployed, different forms of delivery, and different argumentation frameworks they use. We also lay out a roadmap for future work.