2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijar.2019.03.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comprehensive study of argumentation frameworks with sets of attacking arguments

Abstract: It has been argued that Dung's classical Abstract Argumentation Framework (AAF) model is not appropriate for capturing "joint attacks", a feature that is inherent in several contexts and applications. The model proposed by Nielsen and Parsons in [1], often referred to as "framework with sets of attacking arguments" (SETAF), fills this gap by introducing joint attacks as a generalisation of the standard attack relationship of AAFs, thus constituting a faithful generalization of Dung's model. Building on that wo… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
55
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(57 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
2
55
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In a recent paper, Flouris and Bikakis [13] investigate semantics of SETAFs and their relations. They extended semi-stable, stage, ideal and eager semantics to SETAFs, and provide three-valued labelingbased semantics for SETAFs.…”
Section: Discussion and Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In a recent paper, Flouris and Bikakis [13] investigate semantics of SETAFs and their relations. They extended semi-stable, stage, ideal and eager semantics to SETAFs, and provide three-valued labelingbased semantics for SETAFs.…”
Section: Discussion and Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides conflict-free and admissible sets, these are the naive, stable, preferred, complete, grounded, stage, and semi-stable semantics, which we will abbreviate by naive, stb, pref , com, grd, stage, and sem, respectively. All semantics except semistable and stage are defined according to [16], while semi-stable and stage are straight forward generalizations of the according semantics for Dung AFs [4,21], which have been independently proposed in [11,13]. For a given semantics σ , σ (F ) denotes the set of extensions of F under σ .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To do so, we start by introducing some terminology. Given a formalism F , the set of all extensions of F are denoted by E and the set of all possible interpretations of F are denoted by V. The function Ext2Int F , in Definition 18, is a modification of the function (associating labellings to extensions) given in Definition 5.1. of [21].…”
Section: Theorem 12 Let D = (S L C) Be a Sfsadf In Which The Accepmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Secondly, since other generalizations of Dung AFs can be seen as special case of ADFs, results on ADFs carry over to these special cases. We exemplify this aspect in the paper, by deriving new results for argumentation frameworks with collective attacks (SETAFs) [27] which have received increasing interest recently [18,21]. To the best of our knowledge concepts like symmetric SETAFs have not been investigated yet, and we provide first results in this direction.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation