Skip to Main content Skip to Navigation
New interface
Conference papers

Valid attacks in argumentation frameworks with recursive attacks

Abstract : The purpose of this work is to study a generalisation of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks that allows representing recursive attacks, that is, a class of attacks whose targets are other attacks. We do this by developing a theory of argumentation where the classic role of attacks in defeating arguments is replaced by a subset of them, which is extension dependent and which, intuitively, represents a set of “valid attacks” with respect to the extension. The studied theory displays a conservative generalisation of Dung’s semantics (complete, preferred and stable) and also of its principles (conflictfreeness, acceptability and admissibility). Furthermore, despite its conceptual differences, we are also able to show that our theory agrees with the AFRA interpretation of recursive attacks for the complete, preferred and stable semantics.
Complete list of metadata

Cited literature [15 references]  Display  Hide  Download
Contributor : Open Archive Toulouse Archive Ouverte (OATAO) Connect in order to contact the contributor
Submitted on : Wednesday, February 14, 2018 - 4:08:38 PM
Last modification on : Monday, July 4, 2022 - 9:40:15 AM
Long-term archiving on: : Monday, May 7, 2018 - 11:21:29 AM


Files produced by the author(s)


  • HAL Id : hal-01709146, version 1
  • OATAO : 19185


Claudette Cayrol, Jorge Fandinno, Luis Fariñas del Cerro, Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex. Valid attacks in argumentation frameworks with recursive attacks. 13th International Symposium on Commonsense Reasoning (Commonsense 2017), Nov 2017, London, United Kingdom. pp.1-8. ⟨hal-01709146⟩



Record views


Files downloads