A qualitative investigation of the degree of explainability of defeasible argumentation and non-monotonic fuzzy reasoning

Defeasible argumentation has advanced as a solid theoretical research discipline for inference under uncertainty. Scholars have predominantly focused on the construction of argument-based models for demonstrating non-monotonic reasoning adopting the notions of arguments and conflicts. However, they have marginally attempted to examine the degree of explainability that this approach can offer to explain inferences to humans in real-world applications. Model explanations are extremely important in areas such as medical diagnosis because they can increase human trustworthiness towards automatic inferences. In this research, the inferential processes of defeasible argumentation and non-monotonic fuzzy reasoning are meticulously described, exploited and qualitatively compared. A number of properties have been selected for such a comparison including understandability, simulatability, algorithmic transparency, post-hoc interpretability, computational complexity and extensibility. Findings show how defeasible argumentation can lead to the construction of inferential non-monotonic models with a higher degree of explainability compared to those built with fuzzy reasoning.