AFRA: Argumentation framework with recursive attacks

  title={AFRA: Argumentation framework with recursive attacks},
  author={Pietro Baroni and Federico Cerutti and Massimiliano Giacomin and Giovanni Guida},

Figures from this paper

Valid attacks in argumentation frameworks with recursive attacks
A theory of argumentation where the classic role of attacks in defeating arguments is replaced by a subset of them, which is “extension-dependent” and which, intuitively, represents a set of “valid attacks” with respect to the extension.
Structure-Based Semantics of Argumentation Frameworks with Higher-Order Attacks and Supports
This paper proposes a generalisation of Dung's abstract argumentation framework that allows representing higher-order attacks and supports, that is attacks or supports whose targets are other attacks or supporting, and proposes semantics accounting for acceptability of arguments and validity of interactions.
Semantics of Extended Argumentation Frameworks Defined by Renovation Sets
A new EAF semantics that deals with infinite deductive defence is introduced that is underpinned by a new notion called renovation sets, and the concepts of conflict-freeness and acceptability are re-defined.
A Multi Attack Argumentation Framework
A novel abstract argumentation framework, called Multi-Attack Argumentation Framework (MAAF), which supports different types of attacks, and gives rise to a new family of non-standard semantics which can support applications that classical approaches cannot, while also allowing classical semantics as a special case.
Defining the Semantics of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks through Logic Programs and Partial Stable Models (Extended Abstract)
It is shown that a Rec-BAF ∆ can be translated into a logic program P ∆ so that the extensions of ∆ under different semantics coincide with subsets of the partial stable models of P∆.
Attack Semantics for Abstract Argumentation
In this paper we conceptualize abstract argumentation in terms of successful and unsuccessful attacks, such that arguments are accepted when there are no successful attacks on them. We characterize
Argumentation Frameworks with Recursive Attacks and Evidence-Based Supports
This work develops a theory of argumentation where the classic role of attacks in defeating arguments is replaced by a subset of them, which is extension dependent and which, intuitively, represents a set of “valid attacks” with respect to the extension.
Logical Encoding of Argumentation Frameworks with Higher-Order Attacks
A logical encoding of extended abstract argumentation frameworks, that is frameworks with higher-order attacks (i.e. attacks whose targets are other attacks) is proposed, enabling to recover standard extensions.


Coalitions of arguments: A tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks
Dung's well‐known semantics can be used on this meta‐argumentation framework where conflicts occur between sets of arguments, characterized as coalitions of supporting arguments.
On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics
An Argumentation-Based Approach to Modeling Decision Support Contexts with What-If Capabilities
The proposed approach encompasses a variety of argument and attack schemes aimed at representing basic knowledge and reasoning patterns for decision support, and shows their use to support what-if reasoning capabilities, which are of primary importance in decision support.
An Abstract Theory of Argumentation That Accommodates Defeasible Reasoning About Preferences
This paper extends Dung's theory of argumentation so that an argumentation framework distinguishes between: 1) attack relations modelling different notions of conflict; 2) arguments that themselves claim preferences, and so determine defeats, between other conflicting arguments.
Skepticism relations for comparing argumentation semantics
A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments
The argumentation framework proposed by Dung is refined by taking into account preference relations between arguments in order to integrate two complementary points of view on the concept of acceptability, which refines previous works by Prakken and Sartor.
ASPARTIX: Implementing Argumentation Frameworks Using Answer-Set Programming
The system ASPARTIX relies on a fixed disjunctive datalog program which takes an instance of an argumentation framework as input, and uses the answer-set solver DLV for computing the type of extension specified by the user.
A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation
It is proved that the sceptical "deal semantics" is sound for the “ideal semantics” in all cases where the dispute derivations of [2] are complete for admissible argumentation.
Attack Relations among Dynamic Coalitions
A formal argumentation framework to reason about coalitions based on a new dynamic extension of Conte and Sichman’s static dependence networks and can be used not only for coalition formation, but also for coalitions which evolve due to the addition of dependencies.
Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks