Nico Potyka

Hamed Ayoobi, Nico Potyka, Francesca Toni

Neural networks (NNs) have various applications in AI, but explaining their decisions remains challenging. Existing approaches often focus on explaining how changing individual inputs affects NNs' outputs. However, an explanation that is consistent with the input-output behaviour of an NN is not necessarily faithful to the actual mechanics thereof. In this paper, we exploit relationships between multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs) and quantitative argumentation frameworks (QAFs) to create argumentative explanations for the mechanics of MLPs. Our SpArX method first sparsifies the MLP while maintaining as much of the original structure as possible. It then translates the sparse MLP into an equivalent QAF to shed light on the underlying decision process of the MLP, producing global and/or local explanations. We demonstrate experimentally that SpArX can give more faithful explanations than existing approaches, while simultaneously providing deeper insights into the actual reasoning process of MLPs.

Nico Potyka, Xiang Yin, Francesca Toni

Random forests are decision tree ensembles that can be used to solve a variety of machine learning problems. However, as the number of trees and their individual size can be large, their decision making process is often incomprehensible. In order to reason about the decision process, we propose representing it as an argumentation problem. We generalize sufficient and necessary argumentative explanations using a Markov network encoding, discuss the relevance of these explanations and establish relationships to families of abductive explanations from the literature. As the complexity of the explanation problems is high, we discuss a probabilistic approximation algorithm and present first experimental results.

Xiang Yin, Nico Potyka, Francesca Toni

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.

Nico Potyka, Xiang Yin, Francesca Toni

There is broad agreement in the literature that explanation methods should be faithful to the model that they explain, but faithfulness remains a rather vague term. We revisit faithfulness in the context of continuous data and propose two formal definitions of faithfulness for feature attribution methods. Qualitative faithfulness demands that scores reflect the true qualitative effect (positive vs. negative) of the feature on the model and quanitative faithfulness that the magnitude of scores reflect the true quantitative effect. We discuss under which conditions these requirements can be satisfied to which extent (local vs global). As an application of the conceptual idea, we look at differentiable classifiers over continuous data and characterize Gradient-scores as follows: every qualitatively faithful feature attribution method is qualitatively equivalent to Gradient-scores. Furthermore, if an attribution method is quantitatively faithful in the sense that changes of the output of the classifier are proportional to the scores of features, then it is either equivalent to gradient-scoring or it is based on an inferior approximation of the classifier. To illustrate the practical relevance of the theory, we experimentally demonstrate that popular attribution methods can fail to give faithful explanations in the setting where the data is continuous and the classifier differentiable.

Francesca Toni, Nico Potyka, Markus Ulbricht et al.

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.

Yuqicheng Zhu, Nico Potyka, Mojtaba Nayyeri et al.

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.

Hamed Ayoobi, Nico Potyka, Francesca Toni

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.

Yuqicheng Zhu, Nico Potyka, Bo Xiong et al.

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.

Yuqicheng Zhu, Nico Potyka, Jiarong Pan et al.

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.

Xiang Yin, Nico Potyka, Francesca Toni

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.

Xiang Yin, Nico Potyka, Francesca Toni

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.

Francesco Leofante, Nico Potyka

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.

Nico Potyka, Yuqicheng Zhu, Yunjie He et al.

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.

Yuqicheng Zhu, Nico Potyka, Daniel Hernández et al.

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.

Xiang Yin, Nico Potyka, Antonio Rago et al.

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.

Hamed Ayoobi, Nico Potyka, Anna Rapberger et al.

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.

Timotheus Kampik, Nico Potyka, Xiang Yin et al.

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.

Markus Ulbricht, Nico Potyka, Anna Rapberger et al.

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.

Bo Xiong, Nico Potyka, Trung-Kien Tran et al.

Recently, increasing efforts are put into learning continual representations for symbolic knowledge bases (KBs). However, these approaches either only embed the data-level knowledge (ABox) or suffer from inherent limitations when dealing with concept-level knowledge (TBox), i.e., they cannot faithfully model the logical structure present in the KBs. We present BoxEL, a geometric KB embedding approach that allows for better capturing the logical structure (i.e., ABox and TBox axioms) in the description logic EL++. BoxEL models concepts in a KB as axis-parallel boxes that are suitable for modeling concept intersection, entities as points inside boxes, and relations between concepts/entities as affine transformations. We show theoretical guarantees (soundness) of BoxEL for preserving logical structure. Namely, the learned model of BoxEL embedding with loss 0 is a (logical) model of the KB. Experimental results on (plausible) subsumption reasonings and a real-world application for protein-protein prediction show that BoxEL outperforms traditional knowledge graph embedding methods as well as state-of-the-art EL++ embedding approaches.

Jonathan Spieler, Nico Potyka, Steffen Staab

Gradual argumentation frameworks represent arguments and their relationships in a weighted graph. Their graphical structure and intuitive semantics makes them a potentially interesting tool for interpretable machine learning. It has been noted recently that their mechanics are closely related to neural networks, which allows learning their weights from data by standard deep learning frameworks. As a first proof of concept, we propose a genetic algorithm to simultaneously learn the structure of argumentative classification models. To obtain a well interpretable model, the fitness function balances sparseness and accuracy of the classifier. We discuss our algorithm and present first experimental results on standard benchmarks from the UCI machine learning repository. Our prototype learns argumentative classification models that are comparable to decision trees in terms of learning performance and interpretability.

Bo Xiong, Shichao Zhu, Nico Potyka et al.

Graph convolutional networks (GCNs) are powerful frameworks for learning embeddings of graph-structured data. GCNs are traditionally studied through the lens of Euclidean geometry. Recent works find that non-Euclidean Riemannian manifolds provide specific inductive biases for embedding hierarchical or spherical data. However, they cannot align well with data of mixed graph topologies. We consider a larger class of pseudo-Riemannian manifolds that generalize hyperboloid and sphere. We develop new geodesic tools that allow for extending neural network operations into geodesically disconnected pseudo-Riemannian manifolds. As a consequence, we derive a pseudo-Riemannian GCN that models data in pseudo-Riemannian manifolds of constant nonzero curvature in the context of graph neural networks. Our method provides a geometric inductive bias that is sufficiently flexible to model mixed heterogeneous topologies like hierarchical graphs with cycles. We demonstrate the representational capabilities of this method by applying it to the tasks of graph reconstruction, node classification and link prediction on a series of standard graphs with mixed topologies. Empirical results demonstrate that our method outperforms Riemannian counterparts when embedding graphs of complex topologies.

Nico Potyka

We show that an interesting class of feed-forward neural networks can be understood as quantitative argumentation frameworks. This connection creates a bridge between research in Formal Argumentation and Machine Learning. We generalize the semantics of feed-forward neural networks to acyclic graphs and study the resulting computational and semantical properties in argumentation graphs. As it turns out, the semantics gives stronger guarantees than existing semantics that have been tailor-made for the argumentation setting. From a machine-learning perspective, the connection does not seem immediately helpful. While it gives intuitive meaning to some feed-forward-neural networks, they remain difficult to understand due to their size and density. However, the connection seems helpful for combining background knowledge in form of sparse argumentation networks with dense neural networks that have been trained for complementary purposes and for learning the parameters of quantitative argumentation frameworks in an end-to-end fashion from data.

Inga Ibs, Nico Potyka

Applying automated reasoning tools for decision support and analysis in law has the potential to make court decisions more transparent and objective. Since there is often uncertainty about the accuracy and relevance of evidence, non-classical reasoning approaches are required. Here, we investigate probabilistic epistemic argumentation as a tool for automated reasoning about legal cases. We introduce a general scheme to model legal cases as probabilistic epistemic argumentation problems, explain how evidence can be modeled and sketch how explanations for legal decisions can be generated automatically. Our framework is easily interpretable, can deal with cyclic structures and imprecise probabilities and guarantees polynomial-time probabilistic reasoning in the worst-case.

Nico Potyka, Sylwia Polberg, Anthony Hunter

Probabilistic epistemic argumentation allows for reasoning about argumentation problems in a way that is well founded by probability theory. Epistemic states are represented by probability functions over possible worlds and can be adjusted to new beliefs using update operators. While the use of probability functions puts this approach on a solid foundational basis, it also causes computational challenges as the amount of data to process depends exponentially on the number of arguments. This leads to bottlenecks in applications such as modelling opponent's beliefs for persuasion dialogues. We show how update operators over probability functions can be related to update operators over much more compact representations that allow polynomial-time updates. We discuss the cognitive and probabilistic-logical plausibility of this approach and demonstrate its applicability in computational persuasion.

Nico Potyka

Weighted bipolar argumentation frameworks allow modeling decision problems and online discussions by defining arguments and their relationships. The strength of arguments can be computed based on an initial weight and the strength of attacking and supporting arguments. While previous approaches assumed an acyclic argumentation graph and successively set arguments' strength based on the strength of their parents, recently continuous dynamical systems have been proposed as an alternative. Continuous models update arguments' strength simultaneously and continuously. While there are currently no analytical guarantees for convergence in general graphs, experiments show that continuous models can converge quickly in large cyclic graphs with thousands of arguments. Here, we focus on the high-level ideas of this approach and explain key results and applications. We also introduce Attractor, a Java library that can be used to solve weighted bipolar argumentation problems. Attractor contains implementations of several discrete and continuous models and numerical algorithms to compute solutions. It also provides base classes that can be used to implement, to evaluate and to compare continuous models easily.

Nico Potyka

Probabilistic argumentation allows reasoning about argumentation problems in a way that is well-founded by probability theory. However, in practice, this approach can be severely limited by the fact that probabilities are defined by adding an exponential number of terms. We show that this exponential blowup can be avoided in an interesting fragment of epistemic probabilistic argumentation and that some computational problems that have been considered intractable can be solved in polynomial time. We give efficient convex programming formulations for these problems and explore how far our fragment can be extended without loosing tractability.

Nico Potyka

Weighted bipolar argumentation frameworks offer a tool for decision support and social media analysis. Arguments are evaluated by an iterative procedure that takes initial weights and attack and support relations into account. Until recently, convergence of these iterative procedures was not very well understood in cyclic graphs. Mossakowski and Neuhaus recently introduced a unification of different approaches and proved first convergence and divergence results. We build up on this work, simplify and generalize convergence results and complement them with runtime guarantees. As it turns out, there is a tradeoff between semantics' convergence guarantees and their ability to move strength values away from the initial weights. We demonstrate that divergence problems can be avoided without this tradeoff by continuizing semantics. Semantically, we extend the framework with a Duality property that assures a symmetric impact of attack and support relations. We also present a Java implementation of modular semantics and explain the practical usefulness of the theoretical ideas.

Rafael Peñaloza, Nico Potyka

We present a probabilistic extension of the description logic $\mathcal{ALC}$ for reasoning about statistical knowledge. We consider conditional statements over proportions of the domain and are interested in the probabilistic-logical consequences of these proportions. After introducing some general reasoning problems and analyzing their properties, we present first algorithms and complexity results for reasoning in some fragments of Statistical $\mathcal{ALC}$.

Rafael Peñaloza, Nico Potyka

A central question for knowledge representation is how to encode and handle uncertain knowledge adequately. We introduce the probabilistic description logic ALCP that is designed for representing context-dependent knowledge, where the actual context taking place is uncertain. ALCP allows the expression of logical dependencies on the domain and probabilistic dependencies on the possible contexts. In order to draw probabilistic conclusions, we employ the principle of maximum entropy. We provide reasoning algorithms for this logic, and show that it satisfies several desirable properties of probabilistic logics.