2009 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel
Encompassing Attacks to Attacks in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
verfasst von : Pietro Baroni, Federico Cerutti, Massimiliano Giacomin, Giovanni Guida
Erschienen in: Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.
Wählen Sie Textabschnitte aus um mit Künstlicher Intelligenz passenden Patente zu finden. powered by
Markieren Sie Textabschnitte, um KI-gestützt weitere passende Inhalte zu finden. powered by
In the traditional definition of Dung’s abstract argumentation framework (
$\ensuremath{AF}$
), the notion of attack is understood as a relation between arguments, thus bounding attacks to start from and be directed to arguments. This paper introduces a generalized definition of abstract argumentation framework called
$\ensuremath{AFRA}$
(Argumentation Framework with Recursive Attacks), where an attack is allowed to be directed towards another attack. From a conceptual point of view, we claim that this generalization supports a straightforward representation of reasoning situations which are not easily accommodated within the traditional framework. From the technical side, we first investigate the extension to the generalized framework of the basic notions of conflict-free set, acceptable argument, admissible set and of Dung’s fundamental lemma. Then we propose a correspondence from the
$\ensuremath{AFRA}$
to the
$\ensuremath{AF}$
formalism, showing that it satisfies some basic desirable properties. Finally we analyze the relationships between
$\ensuremath{AFRA}$
and a similar extension of Dung’s abstract argumentation framework, called
$\ensuremath{EAF+}$
and derived from the recently proposed formalism
$\ensuremath{EAF}$
.