Splitting Argumentation Frameworks with Collective Attacks and Supports
This provides a theoretical foundation for modular reasoning in argumentation frameworks with collective attacks and supports, benefiting researchers in computational argumentation.
This work proposes novel splitting techniques for bipolar set-based argumentation frameworks (BSAFs), which generalize existing frameworks by incorporating both collective attacks and supports. The authors establish splitting schemata for collective attacks, supports, and both, proving their correctness for common argumentation semantics.
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 argumentation frameworks with collective attacks (SETAFs), as well as bipolar argumentation frameworks (BAFs), by incorporating both collective attacks and supports. Notably, BSAFs establish a crucial link to structured argumentation as they naturally capture general (potentially non-flat) assumption-based argumentation. The increase in expressiveness calls for diverse forms of splitting. We consider splits over collective attacks (thereby generalizing the recently proposed splitting techniques for SETAFs), splits over collective supports, as well as splits over both collective attacks and supports. We establish suitable splitting schemata and prove their correctness for the most common argumentation semantics.