Splitting Argumentation Frameworks with Collective Attacks and Supports

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.28112v1
• Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2026 17:01:06 GMT
• Title: Splitting Argumentation Frameworks with Collective Attacks and Supports
• Abstract summary: We propose novel splitting techniques for argumentation formalisms that incorporate supports between defeasible elements.<n>We base our studies on bipolar set-based argumentation frameworks (BSAFs)<n>We consider splits over collective attacks, splits over collective supports, as well as splits over both collective attacks and supports.
• Score: 5.974278761607658
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• Primitive-Driven Compositional Forensic Visual Prompting for Open-World Face Anti-Spoofing [59.765442274924595]
  We propose a compositional visual prompt learning framework that operates entirely in the visual feature space.<n>The framework employs patch-aware attention to refine a shared set of learnable micro-forensic primitives into localized forensic evidence units.<n>Experiments on nine open-world protocols demonstrate state-of-the-art performance, strong cross-domain generalization, and robust adaptation to unseen attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-18T04:18:08Z)
• Reasoning as an Attack Surface: Adaptive Evolutionary CoT Jailbreaks for LLMs [56.53007443197966]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in reasoning and generation tasks.<n>Their explicit chain-of-thought (CoT) mechanism introduces new security risks, making them particularly vulnerable to jailbreak attacks.<n>We propose an adaptive evolutionary CoT jailbreak framework, called AE-CoT, to overcome these limitations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-23T10:11:32Z)
• Double Rectified Linear Unit-based Modular Semantics for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework [24.736248300856207]
  Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs) provide an alternative approach to computing argument acceptability in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (BAFs)<n>Each argument is assigned an initial strength, which is then updated to a final strength by considering the influence of both its attackers and supporters.<n>We introduce novel gradual semantics for QBAFs that address these limitations, producing results that align more closely with intuitive expectations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T12:57:55Z)
• Towards Uniformity and Alignment for Multimodal Representation Learning [66.87764574237532]
  We identify two conflicts in the multimodal regime, both exacerbated as the number of modalities increases.<n>We propose a principled decoupling of alignment and uniformity for multimodal representations.<n>We then provide a theoretical guarantee that our method acts as an efficient proxy for a global Hlder divergence over multiple modality distributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T08:08:07Z)
• Abstract Argumentation with Subargument Relations [0.8460698440162889]
  Dung's abstract argumentation framework characterises argument acceptability solely via an attack relation.<n>This framework limits the ability to represent structural dependencies that are central in many structured argumentation formalisms.<n>We study abstract argumentation frameworks enriched with an explicit subargument relation, treated alongside attack as a basic relation.<n>This framework provides a principled abstraction of structural information and clarifies the role of subarguments in abstract acceptability reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-17T12:54:10Z)
• Retrieval is Not Enough: Enhancing RAG Reasoning through Test-Time Critique and Optimization [58.390885294401066]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become a widely adopted paradigm for enabling knowledge-grounded large language models (LLMs)<n>RAG pipelines often fail to ensure that model reasoning remains consistent with the evidence retrieved, leading to factual inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions.<n>We propose AlignRAG, a novel iterative framework grounded in Critique-Driven Alignment (CDA)<n>We introduce AlignRAG-auto, an autonomous variant that dynamically terminates refinement, removing the need to pre-specify the number of critique iterations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T04:56:47Z)
• Cyclic Supports in Recursive Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks: Semantics and LP Mapping [19.799266797193344]
  We present classical semantics for the Bipolar Argumentation Framework (BAF) and the Recursive BAF (Rec-BAF) This is achieved by providing a modular definition of the sets of defeated and acceptable elements for each BAF-based framework. We also characterize, in an elegant and uniform way, the semantics of general BAF and Rec-BAF in terms of logic programming and partial stable model semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-14T16:06:16Z)
• On the preferred extensions of argumentation frameworks: bijections with naive sets [0.2580765958706853]
  We consider the case where an argumentation framework is naive-bijective. We show that it is tractable for frameworks with bounded in-degree.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-11T08:42:55Z)
• Towards Compositional Adversarial Robustness: Generalizing Adversarial Training to Composite Semantic Perturbations [70.05004034081377]
  We first propose a novel method for generating composite adversarial examples. Our method can find the optimal attack composition by utilizing component-wise projected gradient descent. We then propose generalized adversarial training (GAT) to extend model robustness from $ell_p$-ball to composite semantic perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-09T02:41:56Z)
• A Proposition-Level Clustering Approach for Multi-Document Summarization [82.4616498914049]
  We revisit the clustering approach, grouping together propositions for more precise information alignment. Our method detects salient propositions, clusters them into paraphrastic clusters, and generates a representative sentence for each cluster by fusing its propositions. Our summarization method improves over the previous state-of-the-art MDS method in the DUC 2004 and TAC 2011 datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-16T10:34:22Z)
• A Formalisation of Abstract Argumentation in Higher-Order Logic [77.34726150561087]
  We present an approach for representing abstract argumentation frameworks based on an encoding into classical higher-order logic. This provides a uniform framework for computer-assisted assessment of abstract argumentation frameworks using interactive and automated reasoning tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T10:45:59Z)
• Collective Argumentation: The Case of Aggregating Support-Relations of Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks [0.0]
  We analyze what semantic properties of bipolar argumentation frameworks can be preserved by aggregation rules. In this paper, we assume that under bipolar argumentation frameworks, individuals are equipped with a set of arguments and a set of attacks between arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-22T02:45:10Z)
• Exploring Discourse Structures for Argument Impact Classification [48.909640432326654]
  This paper empirically shows that the discourse relations between two arguments along the context path are essential factors for identifying the persuasive power of an argument. We propose DisCOC to inject and fuse the sentence-level structural information with contextualized features derived from large-scale language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T06:49:19Z)
• Expressiveness of SETAFs and Support-Free ADFs under 3-valued Semantics [15.174903837196297]
  We shed light on the relation between SETAFs and support-free ADFs. It is only the presence of unsatisfiable acceptance conditions in support-free ADFs that discriminate the two approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-07T16:03:23Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.