Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces novel splitting techniques for bipolar set-based argumentation frameworks (BSAFs), which generalize argumentation frameworks with collective attacks and supports. The splitting techniques decompose BSAFs along collective attacks, collective supports, or both, addressing the increased expressiveness of BSAFs in capturing general assumption-based argumentation. The authors define splitting schemata and prove their correctness for common argumentation semantics, enabling more efficient reasoning and analysis of complex argumentation structures.
Decomposing complex argumentation structures with both collective attacks and supports is now possible, paving the way for more efficient reasoning.
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.
