Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We discuss explanations for formal (abstract and structured) argumentation-the question of whether and why a certain argument or claim can be accepted (or not) under various extension-based semantics. We introduce a flexible framework, which can act as the basis for many different types of explanations. For example, we can have simple or comprehensive explanations in terms of arguments for or against a claim, arguments that (indirectly) defend a claim, the evidence (knowledge base) that supports or is incompatible with a claim, and so on. We show how different types of explanations can be captured in our basic framework, discuss a real-life application and formally compare our framework to existing work.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Borg et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: