# Contrastive Explanations for Argumentation-Based Conclusions

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03265 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03265/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 7 of its 39 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Jul 2021.

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.07269/) (2017)
- [Explanations based on the Missing: Towards Contrastive Explanations with Pertinent Negatives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.07623/) (2018)
- [Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Understanding, Visualizing and Interpreting Deep Learning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1708.08296/) (2017)
- [Towards Explainable Artificial Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.12072/) (2019)
- [Argumentative XAI: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.11266/) (2021)
- [Contrastive Explanation: A Structural-Model Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.03163/) (2018)
- [Contrastive Explanations with Local Foil Trees](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.07470/) (2018)

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [Impact Measures for Gradual Argumentation Semantics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.08302/) (2024)
- [A Concept and Argumentation based Interpretable Model in High Risk Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.08149/) (2022)
- [Rethinking Explanations: Formalizing Contrast in Description Logics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.01442/) (2026)
- [SoK: Formal Methods for Fact-Checking and Information Integrity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.23239/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In this paper we discuss contrastive explanations for formal argumentation - the question why a certain argument (the fact) can be accepted, whilst another argument (the foil) cannot be accepted under various extension-based semantics. The recent work on explanations for argumentation-based conclusions has mostly focused on providing minimal explanations for the (non-)acceptance of arguments. What is still lacking, however, is a proper argumentation-based interpretation of contrastive explanations. We show under which conditions contrastive explanations in abstract and structured argumentation are meaningful, and how argumentation allows us to make implicit foils explicit.