AFRA: Argumentation framework with recursive attacks
The issue of representing attacks to attacks in argumentation is receiving an increasing attention as a useful conceptual modelling tool in several contexts. In this paper we present AFRA, a formalism encompassing unlimited recursive attacks within argumentation frameworks. AFRA satisfies the basic requirements of definition simplicity and rigorous compatibility with Dung's theory of argumentation. This paper provides a complete development of the AFRA formalism complemented by illustrative examples and a detailed comparison with other recursive attack formalizations.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Cyclic Supports in Recursive Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks: Semantics and LP Mapping
Dung's Abstract Argumentation Framework (AF) has emerged as a key formalism for argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. It has been extended in several directions, including the possibility to express supports, leading…
Abstract ArgumentationOn the Semantics of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks: A Logic Programming Approach
Recently there has been an increasing interest in frameworks extending Dung's abstract Argumentation Framework (AF). Popular extensions include bipolar AFs and AFs with recursive attacks and necessary supports. Although …
Abstract ArgumentationRediscovering Argumentation Principles Utilizing Collective Attacks
Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) are a key formalism in AI research. Their semantics have been investigated in terms of principles, which define characteristic properties in order to deliver guidance for analysing establis…
On SCC-recursiveness in Quantitative Argumentation
Abstract argumentation is a reasoning model for evaluating arguments based on various semantics. SCC-recursiveness is a sophisticated property of semantics that provides a general schema for characterizing semantics thro…
Abstract ArgumentationSplitting Argumentation Frameworks with Collective Attacks and Supports
This work proposes novel splitting techniques for argumentation formalisms that incorporate supports between defeasible elements. We base our studies on bipolar set-based argumentation frameworks (BSAFs) which generalize…