Impact Measures for Gradual Argumentation Semantics
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Argumentation is a formalism allowing to reason with contradictory information by modeling arguments and their interactions. There are now an increasing number of gradual semantics and impact measures that have emerged to facilitate the interpretation of their outcomes. An impact measure assesses, for each argument, the impact of other arguments on its score. In this paper, we refine an existing impact measure from Delobelle and Villata and introduce a new impact measure rooted in Shapley values. We introduce several principles to evaluate those two impact measures w.r.t. some well-known gradual semantics. This comprehensive analysis provides deeper insights into their functionality and desirability.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Jul 2024.
Builds on
8 of 44 references.
References · 8
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
- 2017Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciencescited by 1,201
- 2022From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AIcited by 299
- 2024Contribution Functions for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Graphs: A Principle-based Analysiscited by 11
- 2023Argument Attribution Explanations in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (Technical Report)cited by 7
- 2015Attacker and Defender Counting Approach for Abstract Argumentationcited by 5
- 2021Contrastive Explanations for Argumentation-Based Conclusionscited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 4.
5 papers.
- 2025Set Contribution Functions for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation and their Principlescited by 2
- 2026Strength Change Explanations in Quantitative Argumentationcited by 2
- 2026Towards an Argumentative Foundation for Evaluative AIcited by 1
- 2026Argumentation for Common Ground: Finding Zones of Possible Agreement between Individuals in Conflictcited by 0
- 2026Contrastive Explanations in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworkscited by 0
- 2026Contrastive Explanations in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks2 Sep 2026
- 2026Argumentation for Common Ground: Finding Zones of Possible Agreement between Individuals in Conflict16 Aug 2026
- 2026Towards an Argumentative Foundation for Evaluative AI25 Apr 2026
- 2026Strength Change Explanations in Quantitative Argumentation26 Jan 2026
- 2025Set Contribution Functions for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation and their Principles18 Sep 2025