Strength Change Explanations in Quantitative Argumentation

Timotheus Kampik, Xiang Yin, Nico Potyka, Francesca Toni
1/26/2026
cs.MAcs.AIcs.LO

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

In order to make argumentation-based inference contestable, it is crucial to explain what changes can achieve a desired (instead of the contested) inference result. To this end, we introduce strength change explanations for quantitative (bipolar) argumentation graphs. Strength change explanations describe changes to the initial strengths of a subset of the arguments in a given graph that can achieve a desired ordering based on the final strengths of some (potentially different) subset of arguments. We show that the existing notions of inverse and counterfactual problems can be reduced to strength change explanations. We also prove basic soundness and completeness properties of our strength change explanations, and demonstrate their existence and non-existence in some special cases. By applying a heuristic search, we demonstrate that we can often successfully find strength change explanations for layered graphs that are common in typical application scenarios; still, limitations remain for settings where we do not provide guarantees for the presence (or absence) of explanations.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{kampik2026strength,
  title  = {Strength Change Explanations in Quantitative Argumentation},
  author = {Timotheus Kampik and Xiang Yin and Nico Potyka and Francesca Toni},
  year   = {2026},
  eprint = {2603.00008},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00008v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2603.00008.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2603.00008)

Discussion