Martin Caminada, Matthias König, Anna Rapberger, Markus Ulbricht
{"title":"Attack semantics and collective attacks revisited","authors":"Martin Caminada, Matthias König, Anna Rapberger, Markus Ulbricht","doi":"10.3233/aac-230011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the current paper we re-examine the concepts of attack semantics and collective attacks in abstract argumentation, and examine how these concepts interact with each other. For this, we systematically map the space of possibilities. Starting with standard argumentation frameworks (which consist of a directed graph with nodes and arrows) we briefly state both node semantics and arrow semantics (the latter a.k.a. attack semantics) in both their extensions-based form and labellings-based form. We then proceed with SETAFs (which consist of a directed hypergraph of nodes and arrows, to take into account the notion of collective attacks) and state both node semantics and arrow semantics, in both their extensions-based and labellings-based form. We then show equivalence between the extensions-based and labellings-based form, for node semantics and arrow semantics of AFs, as well as for node semantics and arrow semantics of SETAFs. Moreover, we show equivalence between node semantics and arrow semantics for AFs, and equivalence between node semantics and arrow semantics for SETAFs (with the notable exception of semi-stable). We also provide a novel way of converting a SETAF to an AF such that semantics are preserved, without the use of any “meta arguments”. Although the main part of our work is on the level of abstract argumentation, we do provide an application of our theory on the instantiated level. More specifically, we show that the classical characterisation of Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) can be seen as an instantiation based on a SETAF, whereas the contemporary characterisation of ABA can be seen as an instantiation based on a standard AF. Our theory of how to convert a SETAF to an AF can then be used to account for both the similarities and the differences between the classical and contemporary characterisations of ABA. Most prominently, our theory is able to explain the semantic mismatch for semi-stable semantics that arises in the ABA instantiation process.","PeriodicalId":299930,"journal":{"name":"Argument & Computation","volume":" 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argument & Computation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/aac-230011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In the current paper we re-examine the concepts of attack semantics and collective attacks in abstract argumentation, and examine how these concepts interact with each other. For this, we systematically map the space of possibilities. Starting with standard argumentation frameworks (which consist of a directed graph with nodes and arrows) we briefly state both node semantics and arrow semantics (the latter a.k.a. attack semantics) in both their extensions-based form and labellings-based form. We then proceed with SETAFs (which consist of a directed hypergraph of nodes and arrows, to take into account the notion of collective attacks) and state both node semantics and arrow semantics, in both their extensions-based and labellings-based form. We then show equivalence between the extensions-based and labellings-based form, for node semantics and arrow semantics of AFs, as well as for node semantics and arrow semantics of SETAFs. Moreover, we show equivalence between node semantics and arrow semantics for AFs, and equivalence between node semantics and arrow semantics for SETAFs (with the notable exception of semi-stable). We also provide a novel way of converting a SETAF to an AF such that semantics are preserved, without the use of any “meta arguments”. Although the main part of our work is on the level of abstract argumentation, we do provide an application of our theory on the instantiated level. More specifically, we show that the classical characterisation of Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) can be seen as an instantiation based on a SETAF, whereas the contemporary characterisation of ABA can be seen as an instantiation based on a standard AF. Our theory of how to convert a SETAF to an AF can then be used to account for both the similarities and the differences between the classical and contemporary characterisations of ABA. Most prominently, our theory is able to explain the semantic mismatch for semi-stable semantics that arises in the ABA instantiation process.
在本文中,我们重新审视了抽象论证中的攻击语义和集体攻击概念,并研究了这些概念之间如何相互作用。为此,我们系统地绘制了可能性空间图。从标准论证框架(由带有节点和箭头的有向图组成)开始,我们以基于扩展的形式和基于标注的形式简要阐述了节点语义和箭头语义(后者又称攻击语义)。然后,我们继续讨论 SETAF(由节点和箭头组成的有向超图,以考虑集体攻击的概念),并以基于扩展和基于标注的形式阐述节点语义和箭头语义。然后,我们展示了基于扩展和基于标注的形式之间的等价性,包括 AF 的节点语义和箭头语义,以及 SETAF 的节点语义和箭头语义。此外,我们还展示了 AF 的节点语义和箭头语义之间的等价性,以及 SETAF 的节点语义和箭头语义之间的等价性(半稳定的明显例外)。我们还提供了一种将 SETAF 转换为 AF 的新方法,无需使用任何 "元参数 "即可保留语义。虽然我们工作的主要部分是在抽象论证层面,但我们确实提供了我们的理论在实例化层面的应用。更具体地说,我们证明了基于假设的论证(ABA)的经典特征可视为基于 SETAF 的实例化,而 ABA 的当代特征可视为基于标准 AF 的实例化。我们关于如何将 SETAF 转换为 AF 的理论可以用来解释 ABA 的经典和当代特征之间的相似之处和不同之处。最重要的是,我们的理论能够解释在 ABA 实例化过程中出现的半稳定语义的语义不匹配问题。