On the Expressive Power of Collective Attacks

In this paper, we consider SETAFs due to Nielsen and Parsons, an exten-sion of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks that allow for collective attacks.We first provide a comprehensive analysis of the expressiveness of SETAFs un-der conflict-free, naive, stable, complete, admissible and preferred semantics. Ouranalysis shows that SETAFs are strictly more expressive than Dung AFs. Towardsa uniform characterization of SETAFs and Dung AFs we provide general resultson expressiveness which take the maximum degree of the collective attacks intoaccount. Our results show that, for eachk>0, SETAFs that allow for collectiveattacks ofk+1 arguments are more expressive than SETAFs that only allow forcollective attacks of at mostkarguments.

[1]  Giorgos Flouris,et al.  A comprehensive study of argumentation frameworks with sets of attacking arguments , 2019, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[2]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Argue! - An Implemented System For Computer-Mediated Defeasible Argumentation , 1998 .

[3]  Hannes Strass,et al.  A Uniform Account of Realizability in Abstract Argumentation , 2016, ECAI.

[4]  Jörg Pührer.  Realizability of Three-Valued Semantics for Abstract Dialectical Frameworks , 2015, IJCAI.

[5]  Madalina Croitoru,et al.  Toward a More Efficient Generation of Structured Argumentation Graphs , 2018, COMMA.

[6]  Bart Verheij,et al.  DefLog: on the Logical Interpretation of Prima Facie Justified Assumptions , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[7]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[8]  Paul E. Dunne,et al.  Semi-stable semantics , 2006, J. Log. Comput..

[9]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Two Approaches to Dialectical Argumentation: Admissible Sets and Argumentation Stages , 1999 .

[10]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Evaluating SETAFs via Answer-Set Programming , 2018, SAFA@COMMA.

[11]  Wolfgang Dvorák,et al.  Computational Problems in Formal Argumentation and their Complexity , 2017, FLAP.

[12]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Generalizations of Dung Frameworks and Their Role in Formal Argumentation , 2014, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[13]  Alexander Bochman,et al.  Collective Argumentation and Disjunctive Logic Programming , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[14]  Thomas Linsbichler,et al.  Investigating the Relationship between Argumentation Semantics via Signatures , 2016, IJCAI.

[15]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  On the expressive power of collective attacks , 2019, Argument Comput..

[16]  H. B. Verheij.  Rules, reasons, arguments : formal studies of argumentation and defeat , 1996 .

[17]  Simon Parsons,et al.  A Generalization of Dung's Abstract Framework for Argumentation: Arguing with Sets of Attacking Arguments , 2006, ArgMAS.

[18]  Hannes Strass.  The Relative Expressiveness of Abstract Argumentation and Logic Programming , 2015, AAAI.

[19]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  On the Intertranslatability of Argumentation Semantics , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[20]  Thomas Linsbichler,et al.  Characteristics of multiple viewpoints in abstract argumentation , 2014, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[22]  Thomas Linsbichler.  Characteristics of Multiple Viewpoints in Abstract Argumentation under Complete Semantics , 2018 .

[23]  Martin Diller,et al.  Investigating Subclasses of Abstract Dialectical Frameworks , 2018, COMMA.

[24]  R. Macdonald.  Rules , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[25]  Hannes Strass.  Expressiveness of Two-Valued Semantics for Abstract Dialectical Frameworks , 2015, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[26]  Johannes Peter Wallner,et al.  Structural Constraints for Dynamic Operators in Abstract Argumentation , 2020, COMMA.

[27]  Hannes Strass,et al.  On rejected arguments and implicit conflicts: The hidden power of argumentation semantics , 2016, Artif. Intell..