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, stable and grounded) and also of its principles (conflict-freeness, 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, stable and grounded semantics and with a recent flattening method.

中文翻译：

---

具有递归攻击的论证框架中的有效攻击

这项工作的目的是研究 Dung 抽象论证框架的泛化，该框架允许表示递归攻击，即以其他攻击为目标的一类攻击。我们通过开发一种论证理论来实现这一点，其中攻击在击败论证中的经典作用被它们的一个子集所取代，它是“依赖于扩展的”，并且直观地代表了一组关于“有效攻击”的“有效攻击”。扩大。所研究的理论对 Dung 的语义（完整的、首选的、稳定的和有根据的）及其原则（无冲突、可接受性和可接受性）进行了保守的概括。此外，尽管存在概念上的差异，但我们也能够证明我们的理论与 AFRA 对递归攻击的完整、首选、