Argumentative Explanations for Pattern-Based Text Classifiers
Recent works in Explainable AI mostly address the transparency issue of
black-box models or create explanations for any kind of models (i.e., they are
model-agnostic), while leaving explanations of interpretable models largely
underexplored. In this paper, we fill this gap by focusing on explanations for
a specific interpretable model, namely pattern-based logistic regression (PLR)
for binary text classification. We do so because, albeit interpretable, PLR is
challenging when it comes to explanations. In particular, we found that a
standard way to extract explanations from this model does not consider
relations among the features, making the explanations hardly plausible to
humans. Hence, we propose AXPLR, a novel explanation method using (forms of)
computational argumentation to generate explanations (for outputs computed by
PLR) which unearth model agreements and disagreements among the features.
Specifically, we use computational argumentation as follows: we see features
(patterns) in PLR as arguments in a form of quantified bipolar argumentation
frameworks (QBAFs) and extract attacks and supports between arguments based on
specificity of the arguments; we understand logistic regression as a gradual
semantics for these QBAFs, used to determine the arguments' dialectic strength;
and we study standard properties of gradual semantics for QBAFs in the context
of our argumentative re-interpretation of PLR, sanctioning its suitability for
explanatory purposes. We then show how to extract intuitive explanations (for
outputs computed by PLR) from the constructed QBAFs. Finally, we conduct an
empirical evaluation and two experiments in the context of human-AI
collaboration to demonstrate the advantages of our resulting AXPLR method.