An answer set is a plain set of literals which has no further structure that would explain why certain literals are part of it and why others are not. We show how argumentation theory can help to explain why a literal is or is not contained in a given answer set by defining two justification methods, both of which make use of the correspondence between answer sets of a logic program and stable extensions of the assumption-based argumentation (ABA) framework constructed from the same logic program. Attack Trees justify a literal in argumentation-theoretic terms, i.e. using arguments and attacks between them, whereas ABA-Based Answer Set Justifications express the same justification structure in logic programming terms, that is using literals and their relationships. Interestingly, an ABA-Based Answer Set Justification corresponds to an admissible fragment of the answer set in question, and an Attack Tree corresponds to an admissible fragment of the stable extension corresponding to this answer set.
So far, the problem of justifying answer sets has not received much attention, even though the need for justifications has been expressed @cite_18 . According to @cite_10 , a justification should provide only the information that are relevant to the item being explained'', making it easier understandable. We incorporate this in ABAS Justifications by not using the whole derivation of a literal, but only the underlying facts and NAF literals necessary to derive the literal in question.
@cite_18 @cite_10
2313922531 2440159969 2138596350 2883512601
We suggest a method for justifying why a literal is or is not contained in the answer set of a logic program. This method makes use of argumentation theory, more precisely of stable ASPIC+ extensions. We describe a way to translate a logic program into an ASPIC+ argumentation theory and investigate the relation between answer sets of the logic program and stable extensions of the translated ASPIC+ argumentation theory. The structure of ASPIC+ arguments with respect to a stable extension is then used for the justification of literals with respect to an answer set. We also present an implementation of our justification method which displays justifications Prediction without justification has limited applicability. As a remedy, we learn to extract pieces of input text as justifications -- rationales -- that are tailored to be short and coherent, yet sufficient for making the same prediction. Our approach combines two modular components, generator and encoder, which are trained to operate well together. The generator specifies a distribution over text fragments as candidate rationales and these are passed through the encoder for prediction. Rationales are never given during training. Instead, the model is regularized by desiderata for rationales. We evaluate the approach on multi-aspect sentiment analysis against manually annotated test cases. Our approach outperforms attention-based baseline by a significant margin. We also successfully illustrate the method on the question retrieval task. The paper introduces the notion of offline justification for answer set programming (ASP). Justifications provide a graph-based explanation of the truth value of an atom with respect to a given answer set. The paper extends also this notion to provide justification of atoms during the computation of an answer set (on-line justification) and presents an integration of online justifications within the computation model of SMODELS. Offline and online justifications provide useful tools to enhance understanding of ASP, and they offer a basic data structure to support methodologies and tools for debugging answer set programs. A preliminary implementation has been developed in . Existing visual explanation generating agents learn to fluently justify a class prediction. However, they may mention visual attributes which reflect a strong class prior, although the evidence may not actually be in the image. This is particularly concerning as ultimately such agents fail in building trust with human users. To overcome this limitation, we propose a phrase-critic model to refine generated candidate explanations augmented with flipped phrases which we use as negative examples while training. At inference time, our phrase-critic model takes an image and a candidate explanation as input and outputs a score indicating how well the candidate explanation is grounded in the image. Our explainable AI agent is capable of providing counter arguments for an alternative prediction, i.e. counterfactuals, along with explanations that justify the correct classification decisions. Our model improves the textual explanation quality of fine-grained classification decisions on the CUB dataset by mentioning phrases that are grounded in the image. Moreover, on the FOIL tasks, our agent detects when there is a mistake in the sentence, grounds the incorrect phrase and corrects it significantly better than other models.