Sets Attacking Sets in Abstract Argumentation

Abstract

In abstract argumentation, arguments jointly attacking single arguments is a well-understood concept, captured by the established notion of SETAFs—argumentation frameworks with collective attacks. In contrast, the idea of sets attacking other sets of arguments has not received much attention so far. In this work, we contribute to the development of set-to-set defeat in formal argumentation. To this end, we introduce so called hyper argumentation frameworks (HYPAFs), a new formalism that extends SETAFs by allowing for set-to-set attacks. We investigate this notion by interpreting these novel attacks in terms of universal, indeterministic, and collective defeat. We will see that universal defeat can be naturally captured by the already existing SETAFs. While this is not the case for indeterministic defeat, we show a close connection to attack-incomplete argumentation frameworks. To formalize our interpretation of collective defeat, we develop novel semantics yielding a natural generalization of attacks between arguments to set-to-set attacks. We investigate fundamental properties and identify several surprising obstacles; for instance, the well-known fundamental lemma is violated, and the grounded extension might not exist. Finally, we investigate the computational complexity of the thereby arising problems.